John Edwards was the only first-tier candidate actually talking about real change, about the only key, fundamental, important change that would make all the other specific changes possible. That change is the reversal of the corporate take-over of our economy and our society.
He explained how it worked, how it took away our voice, our choices, our resources, our democracy. The more he explained, the less the average voter wanted to hear. People would rather hear quibbling over immigrant drivers licenses and forced purchase of for-profit health-insurance policies, opine on personalities or gender, discuss old loyalties vs new excitement, strategize for electability.
I think Edwards failed because most people don’t really want change. Not real change, that will rearrange the deck and maybe require something from them. Read this piece by Michael Kinsley . I think mainly people with nothing to lose — or people with very enlightened long-view self-interest — want to reform the corporate hold on the country. Most people fall for the “jobs will be lost” scare, or just want their stock prices to go up.
There is no reason to think that because he is a fresh face, or because he’s black, or because he’s taking Deval lessons in hope/believe/together rhetoric, Obama will do anything different from Hillary. His talk of bipartisanship, unity, working together to get things done all smack of “triangulation” and “reasonable compromise.” Paul Krugman says it well. And Obama’s reference to Ronald Reagan as a man of ideas (and the his little “I didn’t inhale” moment: “Hey, I just said it was great that he was a fount of ideas, I didn’t say they were good ideas!”) was straightforward pandering to the great middle masses, a veiled implication that he’s not wedded to any of those, you know, “liberal” principles. He occasionally mentions inequality, but says nothing about what it would take to remedy it; it certainly isn’t going to be addressed by any “stimulus package” of a few dollars and some food stamps, dwarfed by giant business tax breaks.
No one but Edwards (and of course, Kucinich, who was marginalized at the outset because he really says what needs to be said, like, we need single-payer government health insurance) got close. As Krugman explains, Edwards was on the right track. But Obama said, “if I were starting over from scratch, sure, I’d make a single-payer health care system, but since everything’s already in place….” Well, he would be starting over, and mostly what’s in place is the powerful insurance industry.
Polls have shown that a majority of Americans would welcome a single-payer system. Where’s the bold new candidate, ready for change we can believe in?
Democrats have waited, counted the moments, to have this opportunity. Looking at the campaign picture, I fear they (we) will squander it. Instead of finally reframing the debate, they are ingratiating themselves as centrists. Edwards didn’t fail; the party failed.
Because he topped only by the Champion Mitt Romney in the phoney-baloney pre-election conversion department.
Why? Here’s a reason or four as to why voters rejected Edwards:
<
p>Because his strategy was dumb from the first day. Even assuming there are 2 Americas, his two Americas theme railed against the America that voted — against him.
<
p>The ‘polls’ that show America want Single-payer are
advocate advanced crap.hardly useful for setting national policy. WTF, ask America if they’ll like free cars and restaurant coupons from the government and they’d say yes. Look deeper in those polls, and the next question is “how much would you pay for this Single Payer Holy Grail,” and the answers range from free to not-very-much.<
p>Ms. Edwards opponents labeled him early on as a pretty boy.
<
p>Gore bailed on him with some less than savory comments about him.
Edwards was doomed the moment he supported single-payer healthcare. Oh, wait…
<
p>And also:
<
p>”WTF, ask America if they’ll like free cars and restaurant coupons from the government and they’d say yes. Look deeper in those polls, and the next question is “how much would you pay for this Single Payer Holy Grail,” and the answers range from free to not-very-much.”
<
p>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…
He wasn’t doomed because of his universal healthcare, he was doomed with his ‘2 americas’ message.
<
p>His Universal health stance probably didn’t hurt him, but certainly didn’t help him either.
<
p>This recent Kaiser Foundation poll (from likely Primary voters) indicates that:
<
p>(1) likely Democratic voters almost one-third reject the universal coverage;
(2) 22 percent preferred increased, but not universal coverage,
(3) 8 percent liked what they have.
<
p>That’s fully 63% of the democrats voting who didn’t want Universal. This to compound this issue, Universal health as an issue probably isn’t THE most important issue, so even if voters heard the distinction of Mr. Edwards’ message, it’s obviously wasn’t compelling.
Why do you get a “delete” and I only get a “Worthless”?
I think it was the obligatory reference to Ms. Edwards, although I don’t understand why mentioning the wife drew such ire. Unless, mike from chelmsford thought I was talking about his candidate!
Nice try, gary.
That comment did not deserve a 0. Zeros should be reserved for offensive or totally inappropriate comments which should be deleted, not for comments you simply disagree with.
is for the “Ms. Edwards.”
<
p>Just so you know.
I hadn’t read the Krugman analysis of Edward’s health care plan, the first and best of the three leading candidate’s plans.
<
p>I always liked Edwards quote that you can’t get change by replacing corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats.
Not his fault, of course, but Clinton and Obama had the star power. Otherwise, as the most recent VP nominee he could have easily been the default front-runner.
VP nominees on losing tickets have really come back to win their party’s nomination. After FDR (lost in 1920)…can’t think of one. Can think of many who tried…Lieberman, Dole (failed the first time, came back the second), Shriver, Muskie, etc…)
framed him out of the debate
<
p>I can’t find any pre-Iowa rankings but I can’t imagine they were any different.
..until this primary thing is largely over with.
<
p>Bob, Edwards did not “try to divide people”. That’s Republican talk. Edwards noted the existing divide, that is pulsating in and corroding our country today. Edwards was probably my fourth choice, but he was miles ahead in dealing with this divide head-on. Recognizing and hoping to alleviate that chasm between comfort and just getting by should be part and parcel of the mission of any member of the Democratic Party (unless you want the Dems to unite with Big Pharma and Big Oil).
<
p>Edwards rightly set out that if he united all the people who are getting royally screwed in the country behind him that he’d have well over 50%. The problem as I see it is that people who are getting screwed did not think Edwards was going to be able to stop the screwing.
Just look at your own comment:
<
p>
<
p>You feel right into the paradigm, of frame, or whatever jargon you prefer: “the people who are getting royally screwed,” versus everyone else.
<
p>In my opinion, we are all in this together. A faltering economy, our idiotic health care system, challenges from other countries, global warming. Of course some people are getting screwed more than others, but the way to change that is not to start out by declaring a civil war, it is to convince people that the way forward is together — at least, that is, if you want to get elected. QED.
I say work the country you have, not the one you wish you had. I have nothing to indicate that the Boards of Directors of ExxonMobil, BlueCross, Blackwater, Verizon, Altria, or similar companies think that we’re “all in this together”.
<
p>Edwards wasn’t going to “declare civil war” (more Republican speak). The civil war was declared by the plutocrats years ago, Bob. Edwards was just saying it would make sense to fight back.
…will be long and hard. The Edwards campaign did not fail. He will not be elected President in 2008, but he accomplished so much in this race. It will take generations (political campaign generations) of effort to push the Democratic Party toward the interests of working people. Some of the comments above have been horribly naive in thinking that there is anyway to bridge the gap in the class war declared (long ago) against the interests of working people. Not only is it bad public policy, but it is bad politics.
<
p>Bill Clinton who posed no threat to the entranched powers of the corporate elite, could not garner 50% of the vote in his two successful elections. The Gore and Kerry experiences also showed that moderate liberalism that does not directly adddress the economic interests of working families is doomed to continue a harsh divide in the American electorate.
<
p>What the Edwards campaign showed is that it is not easy work. The urgency of change because of the incompetence of the Bushies and the radical right in Congress almost obscures the needed change in orientation. But this is what should give us all pause…the general election line-up against McCain.
<
p>Today we are at best tied, perhaps behind. McCain is busy defining himself as the moderate and conservative candidate in the race. The republican narrative will be all about national security, right to life, cutting spending (for everything but war). The emotional pull of the wedge issues takes people’s focus away from economic interest…unless it is made plain in a compelling narrative. We will need to reach beyond the normal playbook and focus our voice on how the next generation of Americans can move ahead and how “the two Americas can become one”.
Hillary’s health care plan, like the Edwards plan, has an optional insurance people can get through the Government, instead of private insurance agencies. It’s not quite Single Payer, but it’s certainly a good stepping stone IMHO.
Is similar to the one I drew during Jamie Eldridge’s campaign. A progressive can defeat the other guys, but a candidate who’s less well known and not as highly funded will get drowned out in a crowded field. The only reason why Edwards had a shot at all is because he was our VP candidate last time around.
<
p>Just like I think Eldridge could have won his congressional race had it just been him and Tsongas, I think Edwards could have beaten Hillary or Obama if it was just a Big 2 instead of a Big 3.
if the traditional media peg you up front as a third wheel in a two-person race.
<
p>Edwards got only slightly more attention overall than Dodd or Kucinich. As far as the talking heads and Very Serious People in the Beltway were concerned, it was an Obama vs. Hillary cage-match from the get-go, and Edwards was the noisy guy on the sidelines who kept trying to jump into the ring.
and really consider that a part of my explanation above. In a crowded field, it’s tough for the progressive to rise up. When it’s just two people, the media has to cover them both – and fairly equally at that. Given those circumstances, the message of a guy like Edwards in ’08 would have had a much larger chance to capture the majority of the American people.