I have a stylistic criticism with John Edwards’ response, which I mean to be constructive since I think he’s basically on the right side of most things. His response to this woman’s story is to immediately have it reflect back on him, the candidate: “You are the reason I’m running for President … It’s so moving and touching to me personally … It outrages me …” etc. I think his anger is sincere — but he shouldn’t have to say it, like Bill Clinton saying “I feel your pain.” It’s as if Edwards feels he has something to prove about himself — and I don’t think he does.
And until Elizabeth speaks, it almost seems that we’re left with a one-on-one exchange between voter and candidate — without indicating any broader theme other than “vote for me”; without invoking any broad themes of justice, humaneness, and shared destiny. There’s too much “I” and “me”, and not enough “we”.
Contrast this to Elizabeth’s remarks, which, as usual, are snappier and more direct than John’s:
You need to go to every candidate, and ask them a question: “If you have a health care policy — certainly hope you do — how many people in the state of New Hampshire will be uninsured when your health care policy is enacted.” If that number is not zero, she [pointing to the questioner] could be left out.
Elizabeth draws a neat, stark, morality-based dividing line, and forces the listener to choose. It’s powerful argumentation — more powerful, frankly, that John’s professions of empathy.
I suspect that Edwards feels that he ought to trade on his personality as his prime asset. And by any standards, he’s got a good one: He’s charming, passionate and well-spoken. But in an explicitly populist campaign, relying on personality too much can make the campaign seem quixotic — as if he’s going to take on the baddies all alone. Obama, for instance, seems to be much better at making people feel that they’re part of a larger movement — that it’s not just about him somehow. He speaks of broad principles and widely held values. This is in spite of the fact that for the most part, his substantive proposals (like health care) tend to be less ambitious than Edwards. Obama gives you the idea that if he’s elected, something will have already fundamentally changed, because the movement itself (whatever that is) will have won.
I don’t want to nitpick what is indeed a strong moment for Edwards; and I do basically like his basic attitude, his identification of the central problem with our democracy, and his moral clarity. But I’m interested in finding out why he’s not getting the traction in this campaign that would put him solidly in a top three with Clinton and Obama. And we gotta get our digs in now — before the primary, and certainly before the general.
PS: For an example of how to spin out broader themes from specific circumstances, always go back to RFK, someone who understood certain basic, timeless resonances of human experience.
Millions uninsured? It’s just insane. As if we still allowed eight year olds to work in textile factories or some other nightmare of narrow economic logic without a thought for the forest.
<
p>
Still, wasn’t today about Larry Craig’s seminal moment? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
…you aren’t going to get serious traction on the issue until you are willing and able to disambiguate the two issues that are involved.
<
p>
The health care delivery system in the US isn’t half bad. It isn’t great, as I have described elsewhere here, but it isn’t half bad. But it kinda/sorta works for most people.
<
p>
It is the health care financing system in the US that is the problem.
<
p>
Those are two completely separate issues (well, actually, they’re inter-related, as I’ve also described here elsewhere). Solve the financing issue, and you will get financing costs reduced.
<
p>
I know it isn’t going to happen in the US anytime soon. But good luck in trying.
There’s too much “I” and “me”, and not enough “we”.
<
p>
You mean, “we feel our pain, and that’s why we are running for president and are asking for our vote for ourselves?” We think that is getting a little too self-absorbed. No candidate is us, we aren’t electing a “we”, we are electing a single person, and not their wife either, or for that matter, their husband, daughter or father. We think we need a little less “we” and as much “I” as possible, and we are experts at trying to represent a murky, changing “we”, so trust us.
…when you are electing a candidate for president, you are electing a “we.” The president doesn’t run a government by him- or herself. You are electing what will eventually become a team, particularly at the cabinet level and also at the subcabinet level. There should be more disclosure of who the team will be, not less, before the election, so that we can assess his judgement in selecting his team.
<
p>
Spouse? You might believe that not so important on the “team” aspect–it is unlikely that the spouse will become a cabinet member–but I disagree with your implied assertion that the support of the spouse for his or her candidacy is unimportant.
<
p>
Jeans? That issue is somewhat silly, but remember what JFK’s failure to wear a hat did to the hat industry? It decimated it. If Edwards is elected, consider what his wearing jeans will do to the suit industry.
and he hits on what bothers a lot of people about John Edwards, IMHO. Listen to what Elizabeth does — she puts the ball back in the court of the people who are affected by this issue, and who are going to decide who the next president is, namely, the voters. She says you need to examine all the candidates’ health care plans, and then you need to make a decision. She, in other words, places the responsibility and the power where they belong: with the people. That’s what a real grassroots campaign does.
<
p>
John just can’t help making it sound like it’s all about him. I find it off-putting, and so do a lot of people I talk to who are not part of the lefty blog crowd. Edwards may be the current darling of the progbloggers, but I do wonder whether his appeal carries much beyond that.
She said she had health care. She said she had Blue Cross, yet she still went into debt for $50, 000. It is not just about having insurance. It is also about the cost of things that are not covered even when you have insurance.
…can we just get Elizabeth to run instead of John?
Re-watching the video, I have a question — why did a woman from Lincoln, Nebraska fly over Iowa in order to see Edwards speak in Portsmouth, NH?
first, we don’t know that she isn’t living in NH now. second, even seasoned politicians say odd things when speaking in public. a member of the audience is allowed a gaffe, if that is waht it was. maybe she just moved last week. third, even if she is from NE, why shouldn’t she fly out to expressly ask a question of a national candidate in the forum of her choosing? fourth, maybe she was there on vacation or a job interview and took advantage of the opportunity.
<
p>
do you suspect her of being a plant by the campaign or a special interest organization?
And that’s why I’m curious. She could originally be from Nebraska and has moved, and speaking about something so personal to so many strangers will certainly open one up to flubs and mistakes. That said, if I’m Clinton or Obama, I’d be asking these questions, so I’m surprised there aren’t any answers out yet. I don’t think she was a plant (and not necessarily by Edwards), but it’s not an unreasonable question.
…some people do vacation in Kinnebunkport, for example. Or Ogunquit. And it’s just a hop, skip and a jump from there to Portsmouth.