Do you mind if I ask what the appeal of John Edwards was?

[Very_Boring_Name]

Progressives flocked to him when he ran for president, yet he was a total blue dog in congress and a complete foreign policy hawk. He did a 180 on nearly everything when he decided to run for president and realized he needed the progressive vote in the primary. Why didnt people see through him at the time?

[taterguy]

1. Yes

[Iggo]

23. Thank you.

:toast:

[JVS]

55. I can't believe the question remained asked after you expressly said you minded being asked.

OP should edit or the mods should lock it!

[taterguy]

65. I get no respect around here

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. The alternatives were H Clinton and Obama....

... who.... if one covered each with plastic bags.... were indistinguishable. Both promised Clinton III. One of them delivered.

Edwards appealed because he articulated what many of us felt was wrong with the party and the country as well as pointed to actual solutions to actual problems.

That he may not have believed what he was saying himself is beside the point, seems to me.

[dflprincess]

59. Well said

Edwards dropped out right before our caucuses so I wound up declaring my self uncommitted.

Silly me, I leaned slightly toward Obama but only because I had a vague hope he might not be another Clinton - one reason for that idea being that he opposed insurance mandates.

[leveymg]

3. He talked a good populist rap. He was really a egomaniac sap, who if nominated would've been outed.

[FBaggins]

4. An attractive, well-spoken Democrat who could win in the South.

The general model seemed set at the time. Looking back for a few decades, a Democrat who could compete in the South (Clinton/Carter) could win the White House... other Democrats couldn't.

[TBF]

5. Well Obama did the same thing and y'all fell for it -

but, seriously, I think for many it was the fact that he mentioned class. Most don't. But he clearly annunciated "two americas" and that is more than most candidates do.

[cali]

19. no, obama didn't do the same thing.

[TBF]

22. Oh yes he did - Mr. anti-war himself while campaigning ...

and every progressive on this board knows I'm right.

[Very_Boring_Name]

30. The difference I think is that he didn't previously have a record as a blue dog

At least not to the extent of the other frontrunners, and he wasn't a hawk.

[TBF]

34. Not as bad as the other frontrunners, no, which is why I was much

more interested in his campaign then Hillary's - alot of NV on appropriations though.

Here's his voting record for anyone who's interested: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

[TwilightGardener]

57. Well, no. He was never anti-war and never said he was. He thought Iraq

was a mistake and a losing proposition. He was not against the mission in Afghanistan. So your assertion is simply untrue.

[defendandprotect]

32. +1000% . . .

was going to say exactly that!

[pintobean]

6. I've wondered that all along

I thought the guy was a fake from day one and couldn't understand why so many people couldn't see it.

[chimpymustgo]

9. Look at how many fell for Obama.

[pintobean]

15. True

[tritsofme]

7. Certainly not the first time in history that many people fell for a silver tongued huckster.

These people are good at what they do, and they tell you exactly what you want to hear.

[Nye Bevan]

8. I had to chuckle at the juxtaposition of your post title and your sig line

even though I am actually a fan of Clinton.

[ladjf]

10. Although I suspected that he was somewhat of a "snake oil salesman"

for the first, I also thought that perhaps the positions he was selling would have worked for him and America had he been elected. What I didn't think was that he would be dumb enough to carry on a run of the mill "shack up" during a Presidential campaign.

[QC]

11. He was the first major candidate since RFK to talk frankly about class.

While he was doing that, Obama was stressing the necessity of giving our corporate overlords a place at the table.

It's not hard to see the appeal, given those circumstances.

[Tatiana]

17. That's it exactly. He spoke about class in a way that emphasized with struggling people.

No one really gave a $hit about the working (poor) class during the campaign and he highlighted those inequalities.

I didn't think he cared much about what he said, but at least you got the idea that he understood the problem.

The other candidates didn't know and could not relate to the daily struggle of working class people. They were so caught up in the corporate conglomerate power structure that the plight of poor people barely registered a blip on their radar.

[QC]

27. "the plight of poor people barely registered a blip on their radar"

That's exactly it.

Edwards, for all his faults, at least acknowledged that what's good for Goldman Sachs is not necessarily what's good for America.

Obama, at that same time, was fretting over the poor, suffering corporations not having their voices heard.

(Of course, that's not an issue anymore, what with the White House being packed top to bottom with people from Wall Street.)

[girl gone mad]

54. Right, he was the only one (of the top 3) who made his money working against..

the corrupt system, not by playing along with it.

Trial lawyers who take on large corporations tend to have a pretty good working knowledge of corporate power structures and the best ones know how to exploit their weaknesses.

[EFerrari]

46. Yep. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

12. For myself, he was the only one whoever talked about student loan reform

That hits home for me.

[karynnj]

44. Ted Kennedy fought for it for years - and it was in the platform of many Democrats

I know it was in John Kerry's.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

13. He shaped the health care discussion

Hill and Obama were trying all they could to mold their plan along the lines of John's. And he had the 2 America's right, as well.

[Liquorice]

50. Hillary was all about health care for many years. She did not steal anything from Edwards. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

66. Krugman: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform...

Maybe your memory of the 2008 campaign isn't so fresh in your memory.

February 1, 2008

Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.

<snip>

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman

[jillan]

14. He spoke about two Americas while make money off of a Hedge fund housed in the Cayman Isles to avoid

paying taxes.

I liked him inn 2004 as Kerry's running mate.
In 2008 I saw right through him.

[trayNTP]

75. The Hedge Fund he worked for was a Democratic Party staple

The same hedge fund that many, including Clinton, Obama, and other 2008 candidates, criticized Edwards for working for, that same firm donated money to the 2008 campaigns of Clinton, Obama, Chris Dodd, and the DSCC. They'd previously given money to Al Gore, that I know of.

To even set your mouth to criticize Edwards for working for that particular firm, which primarily backs Democrats is ridiculously uninformed, at best, or completely disingenuous. It's no more hypocritical than Obama and Clinton criticizing Edwards for working for a company they were accepting money from, as if he was working for the side of it in charge of foreclosures, anyway.

I guess we should run down Obama for everything that happens in the federal government then, since he's the President, if every single thing that occurs in an organization is your fault, by extension, simply because you work there.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Elizabeth.....

[defendandprotect]

33. Exactly ... thought Elizabeth would have been the preferable candidate ... !!

[cali]

18. totally saw through mr hedge fund

[SoCalDem]

20. There is always a contingent (in any party) that relies on "looks"

looks presidential
looks like the perfect family
handsome man..nice hair..cute kids..

It all goes back to the "Camelot Era".

America emerged from the stodgy old 50's/war/pre-war/depression era of grime/grit/gray with the kennedys.. They had that youthful, hopeful, fun demeanor that convinced us and the whole world, that America was on the cusp of greatness & had the youthful vigorous young leadership that would carry us along with them..

Even when JFK was killed, we had Bobby, and his young family..and then we didn't:cry:..and the funk set in .

As a nation we have been trying ever since to recapture that "feeling".. When a young-ish person comes along now and then, we try to fit them into the mind-mold we have, and they usually do not "fit"..and then we are disappointed:(

[deutsey]

21. I never liked him, but I liked his "two Americas" stuff

As a person, he always seemed a bit of a shyster to me...I guess I was right, as it turned out.

Anyway, that's why I could never get behind him. Loved his rhetoric...didn't think much of him.

[slackmaster]

24. Chicks dug him

:shrug:

[blindpig]

25. He talked about class when no one else did.

That was his sole attribute, speaking the unspeakable.

[robdogbucky]

26. This is the reason I supported him early on.....

But the Powers That Be thought otherwise, and the other front runner at the time, HRC, had the proverbial rug pulled out, ala Dean with Kerry in '04. TPTB sniff any inkling of populism and wham! Gonesville one way or the other. Plane crash, sexual scandal, whatever. It seems to happen don't it?



WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business. "We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue. Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.

Even more than Republicans, Democratic candidates have boosted the volume of populist messages as the economy softens. Edwards, whose trial lawyer past has been openly criticized by Donohue for years, launched new advertisements that warn against the danger of replacing "corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats." The middle class, Edwards says in the new ad, is "losing ground while CEOs pocket million-dollar bonuses and corporate lobbyists get their way in Washington."

Donohue, in effect the nation's leading business advocate, kicked back hard at some of the leading Democratic proposals on taxes, labor law and the courts. If that agenda succeeds, he said, Democrats "will be gone from power for at least 40 years," though he acknowledged that the political rhetoric might moderate after the primary season.

"People on the other side have been very strong in the way they play in legislation and elections. We intend to do the same," he said.

[e-mail]



If he was that hated by the COC, he was alright by me.

Sorry to disappoint the worshippers aka corporate democrats.



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!


rdb

[bvar22]

28. He WAS the ONLY major candidate....

....who at least mentioned the growing wealth disparity in America.

"If you invite them (Health Insurance Industry) to the table,
they will eat ALL the food."---John Edwards

QED: Health Insurance Reform

Huckster on not, he injected the "Two Americas" into the national debate.
The last time The Poor were mentioned in Campaign 2008 was the day John Edwards dropped out.
Then it was all swept under the rug.

That is one of the reasons I strongly support Kucinich's campaigns, and the inclusion of The Greens in national debates.
They bring ISSUES to the table that would be ignored by the "Centrist" candidates.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. "
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[hfojvt]

36. not exactly true

After all, Obama did a press release saying "fighting poverty has long been important to me as well" and put a decent plan on his website for reducing poverty. Of course, once he got the nomination, that became just a little blurb on his website that was never talked about again. Also, Hillary's typical line in the debate was to say "I agree with what's been said by my opponents" which is a very clever way to neutralize them without ever having to say something yourself.

But it many ways, the media drove the debate rather than the candidates. I noticed that in the primary debates. Typically the first hour of the debates would be all about Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Tara, and other foreign policy. The things that I cared most about, and the things that Edwards cared most about, poverty, taxes, growing income inequality, were almost never talked about. It was the moderators of the debate who drove that though. They asked the questions and candidates did not even get to give a five minute stump speech to a national TV audience.

[karynnj]

49. Democrats have mentioned the wealth disparity for decades

Look up Mario Cuomo's convention speech - it was a better written version of two Americas and he had the record of doing things that reflect his speech. Edwards had voted for the bankruptcy bill.

As to no one speaking of two America's - this is from 1993 from one of Edwards' opponents - guess which one.

In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.
Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.
Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.

To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.
In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.
From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335.

No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.
It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.
Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.

Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.
Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.

Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income.
Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.
You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.

[bvar22]

60. Please read my post again,

...and then post cites from the other two major candidates where they discussed "income disparity", "The Poor", or "Two Americas" as campaign issues after John Edwards withdrew.
Thanks!
:hi:



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone



"By their works you will know them."

[Boojatta]

62. There's no need to guess.

You posted it in the past, along with the answer.

In my humble opinion, it was worth repeating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. +1.

Given the choice between possibly insincere advocacy for the poor and none at all...

[supernova]

29. I dunno what it was.

I was indifferent to him at the time he was a Senator for my state.

Partly, I think, it was that he was so much younger than the old fogies at the time, Helms and Faircloth. So, he was ahead just on the youth/vitality scale.

Honestly, I think all the "two americas" talk that came from him really came from Elizabeth. Edwards just looked good doing it. I think she was the politically astute one. Afterall, she was thoughtful enough to spend some time here at DU.

In a better time and place, Elizabeth would have been the candidate. I like to think so anyway.

edit: Re: Senate race. I don't remember who I voted for in the primary. :think: But I certainly voted for JE over the repub ticket in the general. Anybody who wasn't a Repub in that office was at least a step in the right direction. Here in NC, the Repubs really love the Senate rate. They can win that, and sometimes the Governorship.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Good hair.

[Liberal_in_LA]

47. Very good hair

[Shagbark Hickory]

74. Really, really, really very good hair.

[Horse with no Name]

35. The message.

He actually opened up a dialogue to include poor people and what we could do to make their life better.

[mentalsolstice]

37. I'll get piled on for this, but I cared for neither Edwards

Something about both of them rubbed me wrong. That said, I'm sorry that things turned out the way they did. I feel for their children.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. The poor, predatory lending, health care, shifting of the tax base from wealth to wages

His stump speech from '03 was all about economic fairness, and it was what I wanted to hear from a Democrat.

[B Calm]

39. He understood that there were two America's. He came from a working class

family. He fought for working people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

40. He gave pretty speeches, which is what Obama is criticized for.

And if you point out Edwards' work with a hedge fund, not to mention his relatively conservative voting record, it falls on deaf ears.

[Raine]

41. Electable

actually I thought he was the most electable of those running ... :silly: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

[dembotoz]

42. of obama, clinton and edwards-he seemed the ONLY progressive

obama and clinton appeared to be bush lite



in fact they still _ _

[PavePusher]

43. 'twas the hair, man.... n/t

[walldude]

45. He wasn't Bush.

[mzmolly]

48. I liked his platform and his wife.

Seriously. That's it. He had a very progressive platform as opposed to the other candidates.

[struggle4progress]

51. I volunteered extensively for Mr Edwards' 98 Senate campaign. A bunch of folk

liked him back then: he was bright, articulate, successful; former Senator Sanford encouraged him to try politics. I'd encounter him, his wife, or his wife's sister in the campaign office; the family felt good to me back then. I think he and his wife were close and had warm regard for each other at the time

I don't really know what happened. My guess is that he was a small town boy made good, and although Raleigh might have looked like the bigtime to him once, it was small and provincial compared to DC or a national campaign. So maybe he just climbed too high too fast and forgot who he was and who had helped him get where he got. I expect politics is full of tragedies like that

I don't know what the prospects are for NC Senators to vote as reliable progressives and continue to get re-elected. Based on my 98 experience with Edwards, I thought the stances he took in his Presidential campaign sounded like the real thing -- but given the meltdown of his 08 run, I suppose I could have been wrong. Anyway, I was a diehard defender until the end, which will no doubt color your view of my opinions

[NCarolinawoman]

64. Heh. I was a big supporter of DG Martin back in 98.

I really liked the guy and felt he was a proven liberal. I also thought that his having been a Green Beret, would help him win the military areas of eastern North Carolina.

Even so, when Edwards won, I took it in stride and had high hopes.... It was when he fell down on the job with constituent services that I really started getting irritated with him. I had a hard time watching his photo-ops in New Orleans, when I knew first hand that he never visited coastal North Carolina after Hurricane Isabel reeked havoc in the area. Then there was his big-time support of Bush's war....

I guess we have to live and learn. I think you are on to something concerning all the adulation going to his head. I still remember People Magazine naming him one of their "Sexiest Men" right after he got to Washington. :eyes:

[BrightKnight]

52. He was more electable than most of the people running. Attacking him is not helpful.

You can be revisionist about it but he really was a very strong candidate. I sent him money and I don't regret it.

--
I don't understand his relationship with Elizabeth Edwards. Anyone could see that she was exceptional. I can't imagine how he could not come home feeling like the luckiest man alive. Families break up all of the time. Perhaps if they were not in politics it would have happened earlier. You can't blame him for cancer. Attacking him does not help his family. If you really want to do something for Elizabeth Edwards leave him alone. His political career is clearly over.

[girl gone mad]

53. Elizabeth. n/t

[JVS]

56. In a desperate situation everyone needs to pick someone eventually

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2237371

[Boojatta]

63. Locked but not forgotten?

;-)

[TwilightGardener]

58. Never got him at all. Total phony.

[undeterred]

61. Great hair, great smile, blue eyes.

Slick lawyer who said all the things people wanted to hear.

[TK421]

67. Not sure, except that America sure loves their used car salesmen to represent them n/t

[XanaDUer]

68. He talked about the poor and not just "the middle class"

nt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. I didn't like any of the candidates in 2008

I knew Hillary was a corporatist.

Obama was unreadable, but I could see that his "progressive populist" shtick was just a shtick, all style and no substance.

Edwards was the first one to talk about poverty, the only candidate to talk like an FDR Democrat. He was already out of the race by the time the Minnesota caucuses came around, so I voted "uncommitted" to express my disgust with our two remaining candidates.

Of the two disappointing options, I slightly favored Hillary after that, because there was more of a "what you see is what you get" air about her, but I still didn't like her.

And I was right about Obama. He faked his supporters out.

[Obamanaut]

70. Good looks, good hair, good suit (empty), nice wife. nt

[AtomicKitten]

71. Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P:

Edwards' pro-Iraq-war OpEd was featured on the Bush WH website. :mad:

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Given the choice between someone who promises to govern progressively...

... even if his sincerity is questionable, and people who promise to govern "from the center". The choice for me was easy.

What's frustrating for those of us who were here in 2008 and were not on the Obama bandwagon, is the surprise among those who advocated purging everyone else that Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do.

... and still we see posters attempting to delude reassure themselves and us that "he doesn't really mean" what he's saying.

[cali]

76. gad. he was as bluedog as they get and a war monger to boot. talk

about delusional.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. It's all speculation.

I think the likelihood of a guy getting elected on a promise of universal healthcare is more likely to deliver it than someone who promised "optional universal" healthcare.

[RegieRocker]

77. Smooth Talker

[InvisibleTouch]

78. The missed opportunity of 2004, perhaps.

I liked all of the major '08 candidates, but Edwards had a bit of an edge for me at the beginning, because I felt he was cheated out of the Vice Presidency in 2004. By the time my state had its primary, he had dropped out, so I voted for Hillary. Obama was my last choice out of the top 3, not because I didn't like him, but mainly because I knew less about him than about the other two. I wasn't at all unhappy to vote for him in the general.

[The Midway Rebel]

79. I do not get hung up on physical appearance.

I could give a flying fuck about his hair, eye color, suits or his skin tone. He was the ONLY Democratic candidate with even a whiff of progrssiveness who advocated for the working poor people in America.

[LWolf]

80. Sure.

He was the only one of the top 3 contenders who even pretended to take left-of-center positions on issues.

Some of his supporters believed him. I was only a supporter for a few weeks between DK dropping out and Edwards dropping out, and I didn't trust him. At least, though, his campaign rhetoric kept the focus where it should have been. There would have been more to hold him accountable for.

[crazyjoe]

82. he had very nice hair?

[KamaAina]

83. Basically, the "two Americas" theme

Amazing, innit, how no one got right down to the bone of the poverty problem quite like a multimillionaire trial lawyer who gets $400 haircuts? :eyes: