Is John Edwards for real?

John “we need to recognize that there are two Americas” Edwards, or

<

p>
John “I’m angry at the world and fighting to stay in third” Edwards?

<

p>
I liked the first one.  I saw from him a genuine, human concern for poverty.  I saw from him an understanding and interest in extending American opportunity to all.  In 2004 he was the last one standing with a vision, with a trace of inspiration.  He could connect with poor rural whites, which was politically useful.  The old Edwards remains my second choice in 2008 after Governor Bill Richardson. 

<

p>
The second one showed up a couple of weeks ago.  I don’t know if his campaign felt Obama was out-Edwardsing him or what, but suddenly Edwards has become vague and angry.  Here’s a spot of his new stump speech:

<

p>

It’s not about being ready to grab the reigns of establishment Washington and stand on the side of corporate elites. If it is, there are plenty who will do a better job than me at protecting the status quo, and preserving the policies and politics of the past…On that new path lies One America, where possibility is unbound and opportunity is the birthright of every American. Where the voices of the people are heard again in the halls of government, and government heeds their call. One America, where every individual takes responsibility for our common good, and the chance to reach one’s God-given potential is every individual’s common right.

<

p>
It sounds like the winning speech in a VFW high school essay contest.  What does any of this mean?  Among the noise of Edwards’ renewed attacks on corporate power, insurance, banks, and possibly the gold standard, he hasn’t said what he’s going to do.  Is he going to change the tax code?  How?  Is he going to regulate insurance companies?  How, with whom?  And does he still have a foreign policy platform?

<

p>
I feel like the new Edwards is playing me for a sucker — maybe if he convinces me that he’s as angry as I am at the same people I am, I won’t notice that he doesn’t have any better idea of how to stop them than I do.

<

p>
As I mention elsewhere, his pig-fattening line is of a piece with this. It’s all good and folksy, but it gives me zero idea about whether he’d vote again for NCLB, or how he’d reform it or add to it.

<

p>
(As for Edwards/Kucinich, no.  Just no.  A VP nominee should add to a ticket, and Kucinich takes away from it.  You need an experienced VP nominee from outside the South who at this point almost has to be a woman and/or minority.)

<

p>
I hope the old Edwards comes back, because the new Edwards is making Joe Biden look pretty good in my eyes.

No need to apologize at all.

<

p>
I think Edwards is really appealing, and I don’t care if the “two Americas” thing happens to be a convenient theme, or “frame” as we like to say online, but it’s also true. There’s a lot of good things to say about Edwards.

<

p>
The bad things are minor, but they are nagging me. He’s on the board of a bank that is foreclosing homes in New Orleans. He’s so good on the stump that he can seem phony. The guy is a lawyer — and I like lawyers — but I can’t shake the salesman aspect. From an issue point of view, I can’t see a single reason to vote against him.

<

p>
I agree that Kucinich would bring nothing to the ticket. Richardson might be good, or Dodd. Dodd is another guy I like, but we’re talking about Edwards.

<

p>

HERE

Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic is impressed with this moment from the Portsmouth rally, where John and Elizabeth both vow to fight for universal health care.

<

p>
The “fight the system” rhetoric that sabutai doesn’t like is something of a recent change, I’ll admit.  (I had another friend who saw him in Keene who is worried that he’s now being too divisive whereas Obama wants to reunify the country.)  But this clip gets back to what has always appealed to me about him — his willingness to stand up and say that the existence of two Americas is wrong, in this case that such a rich country cannot provide universal health care is wrong.

<

p>
In the case of health care he’s made a detailed proposal.  In the case of NCLB he hasn’t addressed implementation in much detail that I’m aware of  — he’s just spoken of goals like increasing aid to failing schools rather than decreasing it, and returning more control over student evaluation to teachers from standardized testing.  He did say in Keene that NCLB might be beyond repair but in any case should be changed in these directions.  I think there’s a simple answer to the apparent conflict between his Senate vote for the original NCLB and his opposition now — like Ted Kennedy, he believed some of the “compassionate conservatism” line from the administration in the first year, and didn’t account for the type of implementation NCLB has had.

<

p>
Electing Edwards will not bring a national revolution.  He would start his presidency with more of a commitment than Bill Clinton had to change the system in the direction of fairness.  Bill accomplished a lot, and I think as president John Edwards could accomplish a lot.  You have to pick a candidate based on a combination of what they would try to do and how much they might be able to achieve.  Edwards’ ambition towards fairness is the strongest of the three major candidates, and all three of them are relative unknowns as to how they would perform in office (except that Hillary has seen a somewhat successful administration up close).

I laugh when people find other candidates more specific than John Edwards…he has offered more specifics in his campaign than any candidate I have seen in my over 30 years of voting. Checkout his website and look at his positions on Iraq, the Economy, etc…

<

p>
He is far more specific than Howard Dean was in 2004 and his interest in policy far broader than Dean’s.

<

p>
It is so odd when people try to discredit someone trying to do things for working families because they managed to get out of the working class. No doubt John Edwards has made his share of mistakes, and he is the first to admit them, but how does one make investments and take jobs without having some negative impact somewhere? It is a trap we should not fall into on the progressive side. Otherwise you just get an inbred permanent political class who never venture outside of government. Isn’t that one of the things we are trying to struggle against?

<

p>
I have tremendous respect for Dodd, Biden Richardson and the rest…but they are not going to get working people, not in the habit of voting democratic, voting democratic. There is not enough in their background, nor their message, that gets to the heart of the economic and social insecurity people feel across America. In John Edwards’ message there is that hope.

And my father, who still hasn’t chosen a candidate, finds him to be very sincere.  He’s seen Edwards a number of times in 04 and now.  And he’s seen the other candidates as well.  Edwards is the only one he refers to as sincere.

<

p>
As for me, I’m convinced.  I saw him at yearlyKos and in NH over the weekend.  The thing about him is that his positions are related to experiences he’s had in his life.  In particular, issues with health care and coverage, workers rights, access to college and trade issues are based on watching his father lose health insurance when his mill closed, watching high school friends lose their jobs, and watching his mother close her business to take a job with health insurance.

<

p>
I disagree with him on marriage equality and some other things but on the whole I see him as someone who cares about the lives of individual people.  I know that he’s considered attractive but I don’t feel like I’m being sold a bill of goods when I’m there in the room with him.  He doesn’t come across as phony nor as slick.

<

p>
As for his policies, if you don’t agree with them and find another candidate who shares more of your priorities then perhaps John Edwards isn’t for you.