« Obama Takes His Gloves Off | Main | Mixing It Up » Bet Edwards Will Win The Focus Groups Again21 Jan 2008 08:35 pm He is dominating the debate so far...extremely well informed on the subjects he's being asked, and he seems to be relishing his role as the third wheel...because the two fighting children are forced to listen to him. Again, on points, he seems to win these debates. Why don't people who like Edwards after watching debates vote for him? Comments (23)
"Why don't people who like Edwards after watching debates vote for him?" Personally, for me, I just don't believe him. No authenticity to the message. 
Because the only reason Edwards can occupy the position of above-it-all is that the other two don't take him seriously. And there are reasons they don't take him seriously: 4% in Nevada. If he was making good points while the other two were taking him seriously, then he would get votes.
The truth is that not that many people watch the debates. And even among those who watch, it's not really going to decide their vote. What matters is the news coverage after the debate. More people see that. Edwards tends to be absent from most of that coverage.
I'm guessing this is a preview of the tone of the campaign for the next few weeks.
Couldn't agree more---Edwards is dominating. I hope people realize that he's the best candidate for the long haul. Regardless, Obama in particular is lucky Edwards is in the debate. If he weren't in it, can you imagine how much nastier it would be? Based on what I'm watching so far, Obama would end up the loser. He's dissembled on what Clinton said about Iraq, and he's dissembled on what he said about Reagan. Not too good.
He's dissembled on what Clinton said about Iraq, and he's dissembled on what he said about Reagan. Not too good. What a joke. To accuse Obama of dissembling on those issues is just ridiculous. It was the Clintons who did all the dissembling and Obama set the record straight.
For those who doubt Edwards authenticity you should look into his campaign in NC in 1998. In the three campaigns Edwards has run he has always used anti-corporate rhetoric and 'fighting for the average family'. Criticism about Edward's authenticity ring false to me. Now criticism about his effectiveness and/or his voting record are much more legitimate. Edwards when from some chance to little chance as soon as Obama entered the race and sucked up a ton of not-Hillary money and even more of the coverage.
Because most people think he sounds like a slimy lawyer.
Authentic? Only John Edwards offers an arc of life experience that points to a candidate with blood in his eye and fire in his belly that has been stirred by being a part of a presidential campaign which faced the tactics of the Rove/Republican machine of character assassination and dirty tricks. Only John Edwards has swallowed the bitter pill of being wrong on Iraq and turning that major misstep into a personal lesson, stated and clearly re-stated, on the folly of foreign policy arrogance. Only John Edwards has lived the life he sings about–raised in poverty, educated in public schools, knowing in the ways of corporate power–his position papers and speeches are inspired and informed by real experience, not embroidered resumes.
The reason that Edwards doesn't get more serious attention is because the easiest way to sell media is to turn up the volume on the celebrity aspects of the campaign. Most people don't consider themselves "citizens", but rather "consumers". So they are more interested in the drama of the horserace -- not the issues. Keep in mind that Obama and Clinton are also "slimy lawyers", and both have been criticized for lacking authenticity. The publicity machines keep hammering on the "first woman" and "first black" President, and John Edwards doesn't have a "first" to distinguish himself. I hope he makes it to the Democratic Convention, as his authenticity really keeps the race interesting.
Do you remember George W Bush in the debates? Kerry was giving cogent, intelligent answers and W was barely coherent. And then who won the election? Argh!
Also--Obama rambles, but his off-the-cuff jokes are very winning. So folks like that, it seems genuine.
I am supporting Obama and I was glad to see he took a strong stance in refuting Clinton's distortions of his record. This did appear probably to some watchers as bickering so I'm not sure how much it helped him. Edwards did very well. The populism message has never appealed to me but I was very impressed with him tonight. Hillary didn't do so well. Her debate appearances in general have been outstanding. Her performance here though was off some. Especially her remark about Obama working for a slum lord came off badly and was booed though she handled the booing well.
You know the Clintons are really letting the Republicans know how the plan on winning the general elections. But the Republicans will remind the country how Bill and Hillary lied on 60 minutes, lied on Whitewater, lied to the American people in the White House. Yikes.....
Just wondering: how can the populism message not appeal? Especially at this point in American history? As for authenticity, wouldn't we be all better off if we realized that people who run for President are politicians? None of these people seem authentic to me, not even Kucinich. The last authentic candidate was Nader, and he was a complete disaster for the left in this country. Jerry Brown gave Bill Clinton a run before that with one of the most inauthentic campaigns in recent memory.
he's the best of the worst and proved it this evening while the bickering 2boobs brought back your distaste for locked horn politics hi.cli sinks to an all-time-out low
Because the media keeps telling them he's not 'viable'
Please...Edwards entire training and career was debating in a court room. Of course he's good in the debates. Why don't folks vote for him? Could be that he ran on anti-corp before and he sure is now...but his voting record is the exact opposite. Folks don't trust the words. There has to be something of substance behind them. Earning a kagillion dollars *fighting the fight* doesn't count. We all know rich lawyers who would argue against their mothers if it made them a buck.
It's also an impossible battle...this primary is historical in the woman/black firsts...wrong time for a not terribly substantiated white man. "We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
"Why don't people who like Edwards after watching debates vote for him?" Because three spectacularly tiny states have voted. That's it. Perhaps if the media quit writing him off, you'll see him do well in the rest of the country. Oh, and the yahoo upthread who made the 4% comment obviously fails to understand the concept of threshold requirements. Edwards could have been at 19% in every precinct and received no delegates. The percentages reported are not vote percentages, they are delegate percentages.
Another debate win for Edwards. Is this the third or the fourth? Why is it people throw away the evidence they hear from the candidates in debates? What keeps voters from reading the candidates websites where their positions on the issues and the programs supported are clearly presented and fully presented? Most irritating of all, why do so many, like sheep, follow the press, who follow the polls, who run the very same, meaningless Af Am v. Woman track in their stories day after day after day? Anyting that does not fit this formula is ignored, erased. Here’s the latest example. Edwards was asked for the umpteenth time if he was dropping out. For the umpteenth time he responded in unequivocal terms that he was not. Immediately following this a CNN commentator mused on an Edwards' concession speech! Just another case of a pundit not being able to fit an “Edwards stays in the race” scenario into his internal script as to how he has predetermined the campaign should unfold. He just couldn’t compute what he had heard directly from the mouth of the candidate a few minutes before speculating about an Edwards concession. Yegad! Listen, read, think.
He's not even who he was 4 years ago.
It has always been paradoxical to me, during an election, when people say they want to vote for a winner. As if the winner were determined by something other than votes. I actually have spoken with people in New Hampshire who said they liked Edwards but voted Hillary or Obama because they wanted to have voted for someone who would go on to win the presidency. This voting strategy undermines the legitimacy of the entire popular vote system, but I don't see much way around it. As for whether people believe Edwards or not: I find that many liberal-minded people are put off by empassioned speeches and confrontations, a candidate who wants to dogfight is not as appealing as one who sounds more professorial, at least in terms of credibility; but in this case, my view is that the empassioned dog fighter is precisely what is needed to take on the finance companies et.al. John Edwards not only has set the agenda for the other candidates in terms of talking points and issues, he has forced them to promise to take on the same foes. As lobbyist/pac recipients they are hardly in the same position to accomplish this. If his willingness to take on insurance companies that have denied legitimate claims makes Edwards slimy, then may the slimiest win!
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Because as soon as the debate is over, celebrity media politics takes over again. Just like that clip the Edwards campaign put out this week - you know, the one you said bordered on "whining" - demonstrated.
Hard to break through on message when the media doesn't care about message.
If Edwards and Obama and Clinton had to go on a Lincoln-Douglass debate circuit, Edwards would win the nomination going away.
Posted by Will | January 21, 2008 8:40 PM