I’m sure this won’t occur…but then again I suspect this year could be one of those 1968 epic type years, so you never know whats going to happen. Also, in the ledge years of American politics its the “people” who always usually end up pushing us into a new era. A second place finish by Edwards in So. Carolina this Saturday could be a harbinger of great change on American politics.
But why or how such a shocking result Saturday? Well:
1. Edwards actually “won” the debate last Monday. Bringing the whole debate back into political not personal focus;
2. His arguments also set the tone and forced Hillary and Barack to respond to his compelling agenda, singular as it is its what’s most on the publics minds nowadays, and probably the coming months:
3. He did as a good job of properly standing up to Obama as he has Hillary, showing courage, strength and an objective sense of fairness:
4. Hillary, as usual, seemed to be the better debater but somehow came off as the negative, insecure type. Remember, Nixon won the first debate with Kennedy according to those who listened only on radio, but those who saw him on TV saw something they didn’t like – which turned out to be an accurate view. Hillary spent most of her time (when not throwing mud at Obama) pandering to national issues. If she doesn’t care about So. Carolina why should they vote for her?:
5. Edwards is the hometown candidate and the first and only debater Saturday to directly address the concerns of So. Carolina. They certainly have justification to take great pride in him, he has never waivered in purpose:
6. And here’s the errant tactical “piece de resistance” – Hillary has essentially dissed So. Carolina by failing to even be in the state or campaign in So. Carolina until this Friday. Showing So. Carolinians that its all about getting elected and not about respecting So. Carolina and using their primary to listen to, learn about and address the concerns and questions of its good citizens.
Maybe, just maybe, So. Carolina will put all this together and send a message, yes to Hillary, but a larger message to whole country which is that real people really matter and are not to taken for granted. And the politics of personal attacks is destructive and unwanted in our polis any longer. The nation is changing for real.
Quite a message actually, but maybe sent only to the misty clouds of my morning coffee.
I enjoyed watching Edwards in the debate. It seemed like he has been freed by the Nevada debacle to play more loose, use some humor, and be above the fray.
<
p>I still don’t think he’s shown that he has any sort of broad appeal. He’s only been elected to office once in his life. In 2004 he won exactly one primary, and couldn’t carry his home state in the general election.
<
p>He has some great, detailed policy statements and position papers. To me, and apparently to others as well, there is still the question of how much he says is heartfelt and authentic, and how much is his litigator training and courtroom rhetorical skill at fighting for the little guy.
<
p>Please don’t jump on me for that. No candidate is as perfect as the image he or she wants to project. That’s true of my candidate (Obama), it’s certainly true of Hillary, and probably doubly true of anybody on the other side of the race. It comes down to whether voters connect with and believe what the candidate says and how the candidate is portrayed, and Edwards seems to lack whatever it is that can take him above the 15-25% range in any race.
<
p>That’s also, BTW, which I don’t think he’s running for nor would he be a good choice for VP. But that’s a whole other post.
but I think this
is equally true of all the candidates, no? The question of where their money comes from in particular has made “authenticity” a big issue in this campaign, I believe.
It comes down to individual judgment about who is authentic, honest, trustworthy, and so on. I based my choice on having met the three candidates multiple times, usually in groups of 100 people or less. Others did the same and drew different conclusions. I only wish that people outside NH and Iowa had the same opportunity.
<
p>The money issue is another where I agree with you. Nobody left in the race is unsullied by money, but as an Obama backer it irks me that Edwards keeps saying that Obama got money from “drug companies” when he knows full well that the money is coming from individuals who are being categorized by employer according to FEC disclosure rules. A great site for this data is opensecrets.org, which can tell you who got how much from whom.
<
p>So, while Barack Obama did get a bit over $261,000 from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industry, it was all in individual donations. Just like essentially all of John Edwards’s $8 million from lawyers/law firms, and so on. The main thing is that both Edwards and Obama have received essentially zero money from lobbyists and have received 99% of their money from individual donations.
<
p>BTW, you’ll never guess who raised the most from the insurance industry unless you think about where the big insurance companies are located…
seems the least phony of all the candidates, imo, not to mention the most concerned about getting some real change brought about. Hopefully, if he hasn’t dropped out by the Bay State’s Super Tuesday, I will vote my conscience and throw my vote behind Edwards.
When they are saying what you want to hear.
<
p>How do you think Mitt draws any support at all from the social convervatives?
The Republicans have long since had this sort of “doctor Feelgood” agenda, where they tell the American public exactly what they wish to hear, and they totally buy into it. This really started with Ronald Reagan, and it’s worsened with the Bush Administrations, especially Dubya’s.
<
p>Edwards tells people the truth. As I said before, I will vote my conscience…and not repoublican.
would be a shocker indeed … to the point where I don’t think it’s especially likely. But stuff happens!
If only elections were won on debate performances, and the consistency and substantivity of political rhetoric.
<
p>Right now, I am crossing my fingers that he’ll get at least 15%.
<
p>A second place finish would really require a collapse of Clinton’s (white) vote-share.