Edwards's Closing Argument

For John Edwards, this week is "America Belongs To Us Week," and if you think that the catchy title is yet another hook to try and convince the press to take Edwards's challenge to Clinton and Obama seriously, well, you are correct.

Each day, Edwards plans to spotlight a kitchen table issue, and he'll tie it back to the frame he has been building for months: Hillary Clinton is too emeshed in the corrupt culture of Washington to fix things and to take on the entrenched interests that need taking on. He -- Edwards -- is unafraid.

The truth is that Edwards has been making that case much more cleanly than any of his opponents, whether or not they began to make it first. It's a different case than Barack Obama's -- he argues that Clinton is too polarizing to get the job done -- Edwards takes the charge further: it's Clinton herself who is part of the system that needs reforming, that it's the Clinton legacy that has consigned the Democratic Party to second-tier status.

In Bow, NH today, Edwards will talk about the uninsured. In some advance remarks sent by the Edwards campaign, here's the striking paragraph:

Who can you trust to tell you the truth about what's wrong in Washington?

And who can you trust to fight like hell to make it right?
....
I will tell you the truth, the hard truth, the whole truth. I will fight for you like I have fought for people like you my entire life. And together, we are going to win.

There is, in this paragraph, an implicit challenge to Barack Obama, too. Will Edwards make it explicit?

Comments

I believe that Edwards is the best candidate. he has already been vetted as worthy to be president in 2004.

Edwards is what America needs. Obama would be great too, although I am sincerely afraid that racism will be used effectively against him, covertly.

Edwrads bears no gender or racial prejudice to overcome, and is a great campaigner, and IS genuinely FOR the people.

Gore will probably endorse him if Edwards wins Iowa, or if a time comes when the endorsement would seem to be the push that puts Edwards over.

Posted by Oscar | November 26, 2007 7:46 AM

Edwards is getting less coverage by the national media and Hilliary and Obama have spent millions more than Edwards on TV ads in Iowa. And yet, Edwards is still tied for first in Iowa. That is just plain amazing. This man is better than any candidate I've seen in long time at framing the issues. All of this should tell us that we have one helluva candidate in Edwards. I hope we are smart enough to elect him as our nominee.

Posted by Patty Morlan | November 26, 2007 8:03 AM

It ain't over 'til it's over. Iowa is still a three way race between Edwards, Clinton and Obama, and the deciding factor is going to be those Iowans motivated enough to go out for a few hours on a frigid January evening and caucus for their candidate. Personally, I think that bodes well for Edwards.

And...it's time we had UHC. Now. Not in the middle of someone's hypothetical second term.

Posted by Jen Q | November 26, 2007 8:06 AM

First of all, I agree with what Marc said Edwards is implying about the Clinton legacy resigning the Democratic Party to second-tier status, because I have said it for months.

Hillary Clinton claims that she "knows how to beat the Republicans because she has done it over and over again."

First of all, that's a lie. Hillary Clinton has never beaten "the Republicans." She ran in NY against a Republican Party that fielded nobody, no-name candidates.

Most importantly, during the 1990s, sure Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, and won re-election in 1996, but the Democratic Party lost everything else in the process.

They lost the House, the Senate, and worst, the soul of the Democratic Party. The DLC took over the Party under Clinton, and began spreading the myth that Democrats needed to be more like Republicans in order to win, and that corporate money was equal to "We, the people."

Hillary Clinton is a corporate lawyer, so of course she believes that, even though she'll never say it in front of a Democratic audience. Wait a minute, she did, at Yearlykos, when she claimed that Washington Lobbyists are such great people...still, she didn't say "corporate lobbyists," even though that's what people mean when they criticize lobbyists. They aren't talking about "teachers" lobbyists, you know?

Anyway, Edwards is right...if he believes it. The Clinton legacy left the Democratic Party with battered wife syndrome. Afraid to be itself because it feels like the 1990s taught that you needed to be more like Republicans to win.

Like Edwards says, "2006 showed that Democrats need to represent change to win in 2008."

It's the same thing that Truman said. Paraphrasing, "When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who talks like a Republican, people are going to vote for the Republican everytime."

The Clinton legacy for the Democratic Party as a whole has proven Truman to be correct, which is why the netroots Democrats in 2006 had a better track record than Rahm Emanuel's DLC GOP-lite Democrats, like Tammy Duckworth.

On the other hand, the Congressional Democrats' Progressive Caucus doesn't speak like Republicans, and it helped them increase their ranks. The problem they had, is Rahm Emanuel was fighting against them, in certain cases not giving them any money to run an effective campaign in 2006.

Posted by framecop | November 26, 2007 9:43 AM

Color me unimpressed. Edwards has practically lived in Iowa for four years. He moved in when Kerry and he washed out against dubya in 2004. So we have a candidate who has pretty much been stumping himself there for FOUR years and he's merely tied for first place (to say nothing of his overall pathetic polls in the other primary states and nationally). Edwards will not be the nominee. The only question is if his dramatic and emotional kamakazii against Clinton results in a murder/suicide in Obama's favor (and the followup question of if there's any steel in the Obama lilly or will he be mulch when the Republicans show him what they think of his sunshine,lollypops and rainbows in the general); or will it result in a wounded Clinton still winning (in which case I'm not sure how much more the republicans will be able to throw at her?).
Personally I think that if Edwards were truely honest he'd drop out and endorse Obama instead of working for Obama's campaign on the sly.

Posted by Minnesota | November 26, 2007 11:50 AM

I disagree that John Edwards was already vetted in the last cycle for three reasons:
1. He was there as v.p. candidate and the odds were against him ever taking over (look at history) without some serious time as v.p. first
2. His ticket lost and so he essentially failed the vetting process: we as a country voted against him and his team. There is no additional service in the past 4 years to change that.
3. He is a different person: he ran as a moderate and now he is running as a crazy person
who as Richardson said in the last debate seems to be trying to start a class war.

Posted by Michael | November 26, 2007 12:05 PM

Michael, I agree with the points you make essentially but I think you missed mine.
Edwards, AFTER he and Kerry lost, started campaigning for the 2008 nod in Iowa. In 2005, 2006 he was campaigning to be the nominee. He was in Iowa long before Obama or Hillary were even openly running. He's lived and breathed the early states for years. And for all that effort this neck and neck race is his results (plus the fact that he's pretty much DOA right now nationally and in all the later states). That is not a good return for four years of campaigning. Sure we dems love our raging populist attack dogs. But then we go into the voting booth and pick someone pragmatic. Edwards seems pretty much done to me. Going on the attack at this stage of the game is the sign of a loosing candidate. The question is whether or not he can drag one of the real front runners down with him. Judging by his unrelenting assault on Clinton in the last month or so it looks like he knows it too.

Personally I think Edwards should drop out and endorse Obama. He's attacking Hillary like he works for the Obama campaign already, why not make it official? Edwards' campaign manager seems to think he already has.

Posted by Minnesota | November 26, 2007 12:45 PM

It is risky enough for Edwards to criticize Clinton in such stark terms, and I suspect he has calculated that he can't go after Obama in the same way at the same time.

Of course this is just Round One. Depending on what happens in Iowa, Edwards could (and likely will) change strategies.

Posted by DTM | November 26, 2007 1:18 PM

I think you've got this transcribed wrong:

I will tell you the truth, the hard truth, the whole truth. I will fight for you like I have fought for people like you my entire life, except for those years when I was in the Senate. And together, we are going to win.

Posted by Adam B. | November 26, 2007 2:58 PM

The truth from John Edwards--the 'born again' peace candidate? His 'apology' for his Iraq War Vote is bogus. He says he 'learned from his mistake.' The only thing he learned is that Clinton had staked out the Democratic center, so his only chance was to run to the far left.

Now he's on about Iran. But when he talks to the Israeli Security Council, he is militant on Iran. He blamed Iran for the Israeli invasion in Lebanon. "The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it. Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel."

When pressed on what to do if diplomacy fails in Iran, Edwards said he can overcome American reticence to use force--that he can sell a war with Iran better than Bush:

"The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." Edwards at Herzliya

Edwards is a whopper of a flip-flopper. I can't believe anything he says.

"They lost the House, the Senate, and worst, the soul of the Democratic Party." Forgive me, but you are romanticizing the Democratic 'golden years' -- LBJ (Vietnam), Kennedy (Bay of Pigs), Truman (Nagasaki, Korea), FDR (Japanese interment). The Democrats have never been a far left party, just left of center on New Deal/social issues.

Clinton is what she is. A winning tactician with a long progressive record. Look at how the NY Republican Party has chewed up Governor Spitzer. The same NY Republicans have never gotten up off the mat against Clinton. Schumer is only in the Senate because Clinton targeted Al D'Amato for termination. She chased Giuliani out of the 2000 Senate Race. Without Hillary, blue New York would have two Republican Senators (D'Amato and Giuliani.) As for 1994, Gays in the military and universal healthcare (both liberal Clinton agendas) were political losers for the Dems, but Gingrich's Contract With America targeted the Democratic Congress on its own record. The Clintons moved to the center after the '94 losses.

Posted by Canaan | November 26, 2007 3:14 PM

And exactly who do the other Dim-wit-o-cratic candidates represent?

It is very interesting when the corporate yes men and slaves to monied interests come calling other candidates "crazy" for standing up for working Americans. How dare some lunatic not support the same people who brought us Enron, the Savings & Loan scandal, who pollute with impunity and sell us defective pharmacetucals and Chinese made sludge. Of course, the question isn't asked why with all the talking heads giving Hillary or Obama the green light is it that they still can't clinch the deal already? Is it because some people actually pay attention to the details and know what terrific set of liars and frauds these weaklings are and will always be?

As Hitchens said back in 2004: this is a man who, "earned his money from fighting large and negligent corporations rather than from fawning on them." Can either Obama or Hillary claim that?

Posted by Neil | November 26, 2007 3:32 PM

Neil: You see Obama and Clinton "fawning on large corporations" I see them dealing with the -fact- that corporations and capitalist activities are how the whole country runs every day and that murdering the economy isn't going to help anyone (the poor especially).

You see Edwards as a crusading fighter, I see a glib ambulance chaser (who made millions off of his antics). Judging by the polls most of the rest of the country see's Edwards more the way I do than you.

Posted by Skeptical | November 26, 2007 3:44 PM