The Guns of August

For a few months now, I think it's been clear that Hillary Clinton isn't some paper tiger who's just going to melt away once her rivals for the nomination get better name ID. The question has been whether -- or when -- any of those rivals would decide it's time to seriously attack her. Barack Obama's been involved in some skirmishes, but Clinton's camp has usually shot first in those battles. Now John Edwards is on the attack, if not quite by name:

The choice we must make is as important as it is clear. It is a choice between looking back and looking forward. A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared. A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy. Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again. It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle. It is the establishment elites versus the American people.

It is a choice between the failed compromises of the past and the bright possibilities of our future. Between resigning ourselves to Two Americas or fighting for the One America we all believe in. [...]

But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance. [...]

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

There's much more to the speech, read the whole thing. The word "populism" gets tossed around a lot in politics, especially over the past five or six years, but in this speech Edwards is really living up to the term in a way most things that get labeled that way don't by explicitly connecting his critique of the economic status quo to a vision of a democratic economy: "Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?"

I think it's a very strong speech. A lot of primary voters seem to me to want a more strictly partisan message than this, but I prefer the more properly ideological note that Edwards is striking here, trying to convince us that the crisis of Bushism is also an opportunity for sweeping change that we need to seize.

Comments

Quiz question: when was the last time someone who talked like that was elected President?

Posted by ostap | August 23, 2007 12:45 PM

I just saw his speech at Dartmouth and thought it was excellent (caveat: I am a supporter and was one in 04 too).

The applause came in the usual places (Iraq, Bush, etc) but in a number of new places too. Specifically, there was growing applause for precisely the points that you talk about in this post: populist rhetoric, attacks on the status quo (particulary the "politics is broken" arguments), and the "big ideas" lines.

Posted by Scott Pauls | August 23, 2007 12:50 PM

Great speech, indeed. While there is a personal authenticity that comes through in Obama's meesages that is very appealing, I'm not sure how interested I am in a politics of hope that could end up very conservative in application. Edwards, on the other hand, may be a complete fake personally - but more than any other candidate he is making it clear that he will try to implement progressive policies that really are a change with the status quo.

Posted by Jeff P | August 23, 2007 12:59 PM

Oh, so Edwards has decided to join Obama in dredging up the "Lincoln Bedroom" taunt?

I might be getting ready to leave the Edwards camp. That's so classless.

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 1:01 PM

Edwards has certainly gotten the music right here. He and his campaign have clearly been paying attention to ongoing debates.

And while most of the anti-Clinton message is indirect, this:

... the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent

is pretty clearly a direct swipe at the Clintons.

Nice job John Edwards. This is finally starting to get interesting.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 23, 2007 1:04 PM

I have the same problem as you Jeff P. Edwards comes across as too artificial to me, but he's saying all the right things. Obama almost the opposite. I'm hoping at some point one of them will drop out and throw his supporters behind the other to marginalize Clinton as the primary approaches. I still think Obama would gain almost all of Edwards' poll number and vice versa.

Posted by tom.a | August 23, 2007 1:04 PM

Edwards has certainly gotten the music right here. He and his campaign have clearly been paying attention to ongoing debates.

And while most of the anti-Clinton message is indirect, this:

... the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent

is pretty clearly a direct swipe at the Clintons.

Nice job John Edwards. This is finally starting to get interesting.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 23, 2007 1:05 PM

"It is a choice between looking back and looking forward."

Sorry, this is not a great speech, but pure pablum. The global economy, kids, makes us richer, not poorer. Life today is much better than it was back in the fifties and sixties. If you had been there, you would know. Globalism makes our lives better, and the lives of people around the world better as well. John Edwards' "populism" is all about raising tariffs and boosting subsidies, which would lower our standard of living rather than improve it. There is a way that Democrats can lose this election, and that is by nominating John Edwards.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 23, 2007 1:08 PM

I might be getting ready to leave the Edwards camp. That's so classless.

Its interesting how different people are differently affected by changes in rhetoric. I personally support increased rates of Clinton taunting.

And sorry, all, for the double post above.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 23, 2007 1:11 PM

Quiz question: when was the last time someone who talked like that was elected President?

You don't even need to go there. When was the last time that someone who is so dumb that he isn't aware that Cuba's healthcare system is government-run was elected President? That's Dan Quayle-level stupidity.

(And, no, the answer is not 2000 or 2004, smartasses.)

Posted by Al | August 23, 2007 1:17 PM

I agree the Lincoln bedroom remark is bulls**t. There are plenty of legitimate issues to disagree on without resurrecting GOP/MSM anti-Clinton talking points. It is particularly disappointing from a candidate who has recently been smeared repeatedly in a similar manner by the GOP/MSM (haircuts anyone?).

Plus, it is disingenuous; does anyone here seriously believe President Edwards won't host people who have given him money at the White House. Really?

Posted by Andruw | August 23, 2007 1:22 PM

so dumb that he isn't aware that Cuba's healthcare system is government-run was elected President

in the absence of video or transcript to confirm or contextualize this, i'm going to label this one Wingnut Context-Free Circle-Jerk #7362.

Posted by cleek | August 23, 2007 1:28 PM

Good point Dan. I think its related to how people assume the best about their own party and the worst about the other side. Wasn't there some brain study showing how partisans process information differently, depending if it was about the "good guy" or the "bad guy"?

Posted by beowulf | August 23, 2007 1:28 PM

"I think it's been clear that Hillary Clinton isn't some paper tiger who's just going to melt away once her rivals for the nomination get better name ID."

Doesn't the Dean experience in 04 suggest that this may be off? If I remember correctly, he looked unbeatable until the last month before Iowa. I thought the lesson was that there's a large number of voters who aren't paying that close attention until the primary/caucus is just around the corner and that poll numbers before that point should be taken with a grain of salt. Has something changed? Or am I just mis-remembering what happened four years ago?

Posted by mike | August 23, 2007 1:31 PM

The problem I have with all this is sweeping talk of let's change this-that, the world, the solar system, ... is that its’ pure bs. It is rhetoric of the worst kind. And that's why I can't stand Edwards with his expensive haircuts and seemingly fake (to me at least) empathy with the masses. Why can't candidates just talk about a finite set of policies? We don't want a revolutionary. We want/need a competent administrator who has his/her priorities straight. Get out of Iraq, sensible tax policy, universal health care, and repair our damaged image the world over. If someone promised to take a shot at these, count me in.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | August 23, 2007 1:32 PM

How much should we value greed in trial attorneys who sue ob/gyns with phony pseudoscientific claims regarding the causes of cerebal palsy, which in turn causes the supply to ob/gyn services to drop, or the price to rise, or both?

Listening to John Edwards lecture on economic justice is like listening to George W. Bush lecture on the evils of abusive eminent domain. I'd rather elect Hillary Clinton with my worst expectations of her assumed to be true than Edwards with my best expectations of him assumed to be true.

Posted by Will Allen | August 23, 2007 1:42 PM

"raising tariffs and boosting subsidies, which would lower our standard of living rather than improve it. There is a way that Democrats can lose this election"

Yes, raising tariffs and subsidies certainly damaged George W Bush's failed bid for a second term.

Posted by buermann | August 23, 2007 1:44 PM

Oh, so Edwards has decided to join Obama in dredging up the "Lincoln Bedroom" taunt? I might be getting ready to leave the Edwards camp. That's so classless.

Just because the Republicans used it once doesn't mean it isn't right.

As for the speech: more like this, please. I'd also like to see Obama openly attacking Clinton more on foreign policy and the war (which remains her most obvious weak spot). She isn't going to fall over by herself, guys; you've got to start throwing some punches.

Posted by Christmas | August 23, 2007 1:49 PM

I believe! John Edwards is truly ready to fight the power!

Also see the sales job he tries to do here:

youtube.com/watch?v=YRObrQggC9U

I'd sooner drive on my rims than buy tires from that clown.

Posted by TLB | August 23, 2007 1:52 PM

Christmas: If the Lincoln bedroom taunt is, "right", shouldn't John Edwards pledge to NEVER have an overnight guest who donated to his campaign? Or perhaps a lottery.

Or do you think that you, I, and the guy at 7-11 who I just got a diet coke from will have equal access to the guest quarters at the Edwards White House?

Posted by Andruw | August 23, 2007 1:55 PM

Just because the Republicans used it once doesn't mean it isn't right.

But it's not right. I won't try to replicate the work of Bob Somerby, who debunked it at length, but seriously. There's plenty you can say about Hillary Clinton without trying to legitimate right-wing attacks from the 90s. Will Edwards be talking tomorrow about how he'd run the White House Travel Office?

Its interesting how different people are differently affected by changes in rhetoric. I personally support increased rates of Clinton taunting.

That's fine, but considering Hillary has around 80% favorables among Democrats, there's going to be more mes than yous voting in this primary. Throwing red meat to the anti-Hillary crowd is not a winning strategy in the Democratic primary.

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 2:02 PM

Hell of a speech. Here's hoping it breaks through the usual chatter - but the way this cycle's been playing out, I'm not holding my breath. (In fact, Edwards should probably bracing for another attack from a Murdoch outlet.)

Interesting the way folks are already getting hung up on the Lincoln Bedroom line - if the shoe fits, as they say. Is the argument that access to the highest bidder is a defensible and even desirable quality in an administration, or that once the Republicans say something, no matter its truth, it can never be repeated by a Democrat? Either way, I doubt voters will feel half as offended as some here.

Posted by Will | August 23, 2007 2:05 PM

"...trying to convince us that the crisis of Bushism is also an opportunity for sweeping change that we need to seize."

And I guess the path toward "sweeping change" is to elect the Democratic wing of the Republicrat party, so it can spend the next 8 years whoring for the same "campaign contributors"(i.e.investors) that financed 8 years of BushCo.

Posted by kafka | August 23, 2007 2:20 PM

The issue, Will, isn't difficult to grasp if, 1) you don't despise Clinton and, 2) thus, don't mind enabling the 15-year pattern of the MSM falsely attacking the personal character of Dem candidates.

First, EVERY White House hosts donors overnight. Every. Single. One.

That is one reason the charge itself is bogus.

Second, and I will try and speak slowly for you, do you think you and I have as much chance being a guest in the vaunted "Lincoln Bedroom" (ooooh) as the head of a top-flight law firm that raised $100,000 for John Edwards? Do you think John Edwards will provide the same access to his administration to that indivdual as to you and me?

Posted by Andruw | August 23, 2007 2:24 PM

What Will says. Also we should remember, the Lincoln Bedroom thing STANDS for something that, whether Clinton supporters want to admit it or not, IS clearly true. And that is, that the Bill Clinton administration calibrated its policy to campaign contributions, which it solicited every which way but loose including in some very questionable circumstances (not only the Lincoln Bedroom, but Johnny Chung, the Buddhist Temple, soft money, no controlling legal authority, etc.).

This goes part and parcel with Clinton's DLC leanings and his triangulation strategy. He wanted to be the business friendly Democrat, the economic centrist rather than the economic liberal. And in all probability, the contributions DID buy changes in policy-- compare Bill Clinton's campaign rhetoric about China with his policy once he came into office, for instance.

The fact is, I see no evidence that Hillary isn't exactly the same. And that's a huge political vulnerability as well as something that is wrong on its merits. Whether people like talk about the Lincoln Bedroom or not, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask of the Hillary Clinton campaign as to whether she will be too beholden to corporate interests and rich fundraisers like her husband was.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 23, 2007 2:24 PM

So the thing about the Lincoln Bedroom line is that it is wrong when Republicans use it- b/c the Republicans are all worse about selling out to conservative interests, but its fair when Edwards using it. Not b/c his supporters wouldn't be staying in the Lincoln Bedroom, but b/c that issue represents that actual difference between him and Clinto- their catering to corporate interests. Whether its the right thing to say or not in a speech, I don't know. But in the context of his criticism of the status quo, it makes perfect sense.

Posted by mpowell | August 23, 2007 2:30 PM

I don't get some of the comments that suggest there's a lot of daylight between Obama/Edwards on issues. I mean, you have healthcare that's "Path to a single payer (with mandate)" and "Path to single payer (no mandate but, if it doesn't work, promise to include mandate down the line)"

You have "big time poverty plan" and "big time urban poverty plan with rural plan to come"

You have "out of Iraq now but slowly" and "out of Iraq now but slowly"

Etc etc

I mean...huh?

If anything, Obama has come down to Edwards left on Cuba.

Posted by mop | August 23, 2007 2:31 PM

Seriously, people, get a grip. Yes, there was a right-wing mob out for Bill Clinton's scalp; yes, they threw every possible smear and accusation at the Clintons in the hopes that some of them would stick. In the process, however, some of these accusations were actually true. Bill Clinton really was beholden to big fundraisers and corporate donors who routinely bought access and influence, just as his policies really were driven more by polling than by principle. That these criticisms were incorporated into a larger string of often-baseless attacks and smears by a right-wing campaign to remove him from office doesn't cancel out the fact that they are, in fact, accurate criticisms of the Clinton era.

Posted by Christmas | August 23, 2007 2:37 PM

One final comment, and I'll move on.

Christmas: Calling out Clinton for being too beholden to corporate interests, if you believe she is, is completely legit. Calling her out for being poll-driven, if you believe she is, is completely legit.

Propping up bogus GOP smears in order to prove that point is not. Criticizing her actual trade and health care policies themselves, for example, (as Edwards has done) is the legit way to do so.

Someone who is regularly trashed by GOP and MSM fools for having a big house and nice hair, and thus obviously not really concerned with your average person, should understand this more than most.

Posted by Andruw | August 23, 2007 2:54 PM

The excerpt looks to me like a piece of phoney, sanctimonious piece of crap that doesn't mean anything. If in the remote case Edwards gets elected president, he won't do a damn thing about it. Do people really believe that special interests, corporate, lobbying influence will cease to exist? The problem of special interests, rent-seeking and collective action is as old as politics and many and much more smart people than Edwards have been at it with little to show for practical solutions. At best it's manageable, not solvable.

Or do people believe that the latest Edwards incarnation into Dobbs-light with a twinge of Williams Jennings Bryant ghost will be a winning political strategy? Hint. It hasn't in the past.

OTOH, I caught Obama on the Daily Show. I thought it was very telling the way he turned a question on experience into an issue of political judgment, something that was both substantially acurate and politically astute.Whereas Obama has been able to attract masses of people through his rhetorical prowess, the quality that attracts me to him is his cerebral, strong analytical skill that allows him to give insightful answers to questions like as this one, a quality that I also find in most of MY writing except when he's talking about John Edwards. Also Obama seems real and neither prone to empty demagoguery as Edwards is nor comfortable in a a stale business as usual groove as Hillary is.

That people in the blogosphere are enamored with the phoney and dead-end campaign of Edwards and not putting their support to push Obama who has the best probability of upsetting Hillary is beyond me.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | August 23, 2007 3:01 PM

I was also there for this speech this morning and was underimpressed. It wasn't that it was bad, it just didn't get enough momentum going to achieve the rhetorical effect he was aiming for. More worrisome, however, is that during the the Q+A session some jackass kid lobbed the "big house" talking point at him and edwards spent a solid two minutes stumbling around attempting to pivot away from the attack. This is a fairly basic attack that has been in circulation for a while now, Edwards should have a well-practiced response to it. It makes me wonder if he is really ready for prime-time.

Posted by Glenn | August 23, 2007 3:11 PM

Whether people like talk about the Lincoln Bedroom or not, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask of the Hillary Clinton campaign as to whether she will be too beholden to corporate interests and rich fundraisers like her husband was.

Yes, it is. And Edwards supporters like myself would be very happy to see those issues raised, if they weren't accompanied by the Limbaugh-style cheap shot. The Lincoln Bedroom smear was, in fact, trumped up far out of proportion by the RWNM in the 90s, no matter how much some commentors want to claim it was "true." Here's a tip: the purported scandal consisted of more than just someone saying "Clinton occasionally has donors staying overnight in the White House," which would have been a completely uninteresting statement.

Posted by Steve | August 23, 2007 3:13 PM

"How much should we value greed in trial attorneys who sue ob/gyns with phony pseudoscientific claims regarding the causes of cerebal palsy, which in turn causes the supply to ob/gyn services to drop, or the price to rise, or both?"

Speaking of pseudoscience...
I remember the big hubub about OB/GYNs being eliminated from certain areas because of lawsuits (central PA and WV). I did something evidently no one in the news media did. I checked my own health insurance for doctors taking new patients, and there were plenty. I checked the yellow pages for doctors, and there were plenty advertising. It was all a crock Will. The effect was minimal.

In addition, Edwards was not using pseudoscience. It was accepted until 1999 (after he stopped practicing law) that about 10-15% of cerebral palsey cases were due to perinatal asphixia and that many were diagnosable and avoidable through c-section. The 1-2 cases per year that Edwards was litigating were not statistically anomolous when you consider that
he was widely acknowledged to be the best malpractice litigator in the state, and one of the best in the country. The science was incomplete and wrong, but it was the best there was at the time.

Posted by Njorl | August 23, 2007 3:32 PM

Globalism makes our lives better, and the lives of people around the world better as well. John Edwards' "populism" is all about raising tariffs and boosting subsidies, which would lower our standard of living rather than improve it. There is a way that Democrats can lose this election, and that is by nominating John Edwards.
Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 23, 2007 1:08 PM

You're kinda out of touch with the public on this Alan. Globalism is a four letter word to hard working Americans these days. In a general way you're right but you have no ground to be so confident that Globalism is all good. A) The money ain't trickling down B) Toxic products are all over the news.
Edwards is on to something. Frankly the other two candidates are foolish for not picking up the something ain't right with Globalism idea.

Even Tom Freidman qualifies his support for globalism these days.

Posted by Northern Observer | August 23, 2007 4:04 PM

Nice speech, but Edwards has no chance to be President. In the last election, he exposed himself as a lightweight, and that impression will never go away. Plus the country is not gonna elect a Ken doll to it's highest office. While some pundits might think a $400 hair cut is no big deal, it is to normal Americans, and the Repulicans will only need to repeat $400 hair cut again and again to defeat this guy. His wife would be a better candidate, she's scarier to the Republicans than her husband.

And considering Edwards awful performance against Cheney in the debates 4 years ago, why would anyone want Edwards as a VP candidate again?

This is a guy that can't even win his own home state!

Edwards candidacy is as much a joke as Ron Paul's. Just a waste of air time.

Anyway, it was a nice speech. Curious who wrote it.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | August 23, 2007 4:19 PM

Forget Tom Friedman. Better if your last sentence Northern Observer read, Even Brad DeLong and Alan Blinder quialifiy their support for globalism these days. And, they're mainstream. There are a battery of others not-so-mainstream who've been 'qualified' a lot longer.

Posted by mk | August 23, 2007 4:28 PM

John Edwards's mouth is parroting populist cliches, but his money is here: Fortress Investment Group.

Posted by Fred | August 23, 2007 4:46 PM

It seems everyone agrees that Hillary's relationship to fat-cats and corporations is a legitimate issue, but some people don't seem to think that the Lincoln Bedroom thing specifically was a legitimate issue.

I've got news for you: it was.

Simply put, while offering the opportunity for big contributors to sleep in Lincoln's bed was one of the minor aspects of Bill Clinton's shady fundraising practices, that doesn't mean that it wasn't the wrong thing to do. The President is placed in charge of a number of public trusts. This is not done so that they can be turned into fundraising tools. Clinton used the White House as something that he could dole out to supporters as a reward-- and I don't think he was unique in this regard, but the fact that he wasn't unique doesn't make it right. Johnny Chung's great/horrible line-- that the White House was a subway turnstyle and you had to put your token in to get inside-- epitomized this problem.

Again, if Clinton's only fundraising sin had been to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to contributors, would I think it was a big deal? Not really. But it was of a piece with everything else it did, and that involved a widespread mobilization of government assets-- which did NOT belong to Clinton or the Democratic Party but to the people-- to reward campaign contributors. People should be offended for the same reason that they should be offended at Karl Rove going around and doing political briefings at the various executive branch agencies.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 23, 2007 5:05 PM

Wow. Until this speech, I heard nothing but phony rhetoric from Edwards, but this bit is very, very good. Please, before it is too late, let's force Hillary to try to defend her status as the corporate, insider, rich-person's Democrat. It is exactly this status that is indefensible, exactly these reasons why she, of all people, has no business (but big business) being on the ticket as an alternative to another Republican Party Presidency. Hers would be equally disastrous as, and maybe even worse than, a Thompson, Romney or Giuliani White House. Then again, her nomination would all but assure a Republican victory in the general election, so a Clinton White House need not be the primary concern at this point.

Hillary's carefully plotted ascendancy over the last decade is the best evidence that the Democratic Party, as such, is not particularly concerned about making the sorts of changes that the reasonable and fair-minded people they claim to represent would like to see and ought to be demanding more vigorously. Good on Edwards for drawing out that point, and here's hoping it gets a lot more press very soon.

Posted by Tim | August 23, 2007 5:11 PM

Hey, everybody, deep breath!

Joe Trippi comments on the Lincoln bedroom issue over at MyDD. 270 Bush supporters have spent the night there, too, which is very much part of the point Somerby's criticism made. Trippi writes, "What we are saying is both parties have done it -- and it has to stop right now...."

So chill with the circular firing squad business. His point is a corporate candidate is a corporate candidate, no matter which party he or she belongs to. And while the media blew up the Clinton issue and swept the Bush issue under the rug, they both had a few hundred contributors stay with them overnight there. For Edwards to point this out in the abstract, about either or both of them, is not unfair.

The theme of the speech is doing it differently, ending the corporate White House. He didn't accuse the Clintons of having 900 overnight guests there, which was the old, trumped up near-libelous treatment they had received. He simply said that such behavior as granting contributors overnight stays in the White House, no matter who is doing it, is not acceptable. Matt's right in the larger picture, which is that the swipe at Clinton is to label her a corporate candidate. Whether right or wrong, I've not seen that picked up as grossly unfair around here or anywhere else in the progressive blogosphere. So quit harping on that one line that, taken out of context, appears to be part of a right-wing smear job. See it for what it really is, then make your critiques of the speech.

Posted by jhupp | August 23, 2007 5:29 PM

Why shouldn't corporations that pay taxes, employ lots of Americans, and are owned by lots of Americans be able to lobby the American government? The average young American should be more worried about the effects of the influence of AARP lobbyists, though they have as much right to lobby the government as corporations or any other group does.

Posted by Fred | August 23, 2007 5:41 PM

"the crisis of Bushism is also an opportunity for sweeping change that we need to seize."

Bingo!

Posted by Petey | August 23, 2007 6:28 PM

The whole Edwards is a phony for talking about the working class and poor talking point is so at odds with reality.

First, John Edwards, out of the 4 top candidates--i.e. clinton, obama, JE, and richardson.--is the only member that can truly claim working class roots. For instance, examine each candidates respective high school and college educations--I have provided a wikipedia link to each high school at the end of this post, check out the alumni:
Obama went to Punahou School, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. Clinton: Maine East Wellesley, and Yale. Richardson: Middlesex and Tufts.

On the other hand, Edwards went to North Moore High School, Clemson NC State and UNC Law school. At NC state his major was textile management, hardly the major of future millionaires.

Why is this of any substance? Well, contrary to others opinions, Edwards grew up, at various times, a member of the working and working poor classes of America. Unlike the other three candidates, he actually experienced the issues he advocates first-hand during his life. This is not a foreign topic to him. His rise to prominence is completely of his own making. The others, while certianly smart and capable, were bred to be mandarins by virtue of their fortunate schooling opportunities. I know there are skeptics here--its possible Edwards intentionally forced his family to live in public housing as a small child, forced his father to work in a mill and chose to major in textile management out of diabolically slick scheme to create a compelling campaign narrative later in life--but Edwards advocacy of the issues are merely a part of his existence.

His previous political advocacy--centrist senatorial career, notably--was a calculated reality of his constituency, a red, largely republican populace.

One last thing, we often here liberals invoke the name of RFK when discussing such issues as povery, race, class etc. Well, RFK new very little about poverty beyond ocassional conversations with the doting help at Hyannis Port, yet few question his sincerity. Then why is that a rural born, working class bred, self made, former legal advocate of folks unable to afford redress (yes, he made a lot of money, i know) is supposedly so insincere in caring about people, well, kinda like he used to be.

Posted by Jeff | August 23, 2007 10:10 PM

Edwards: North Moore High School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Moore_High_School

Obama: Punahou School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punahou_School

Clinton: Maine East (note: the school has a high immigrant population, dont let it fool you. I grew up nearby, its a top flight preparatory school)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_East_High_School

Richardson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesex_School

Posted by Jeff | August 23, 2007 10:16 PM

People who says Edwards is a phony are, to a person, people who simply don't want change. They are the hillary Supporters of the world. People who don't really believe in Democratic ideals, but who just can't bring themselves to live with the stigmata of being a Republican.

They do not believe racism is still a problem, in general. They LIKE our societies lack of social mobility. They like the fact that most people can't afford college, and they like that that guarantees their children a brighter future than they would have if they were forced to compete with everyone. They are people who hate John Edwards because they can't stand being called out on their greed and lack of progressive values. It has nothing to do with Edwards being 'phony', and everything to do with those people having their power and corrupt practices threatened.

Someone who attacks Edwards for not really caring about income inequality, yet who supports hillary to the hilt, is a hypocrite who is simply making opportunistic attacks on an issue they quite clearly care nothing about. Hillary is the greatest enemy to the working people of this country in the Democratic primary, and they have no problem backing her.

Posted by Soullite | August 24, 2007 9:56 AM

Quiz question: when was the last time someone who talked like that was elected President?

You don't even need to go there. When was the last time that someone who is so dumb that he isn't aware that Cuba's healthcare system is government-run was elected President? That's Dan Quayle-level stupidity.

(And, no, the answer is not 2000 or 2004, smartasses.)

Posted by Al | August 23, 2007 1:17 PM

Actually, I think Edwards was being a smart-ass. He deferred from taking the ridiculous, dumb-ass question seriously, instead making a joke about the ridiculousness of the question, which was "Hey how kum yoo want Amurka to get health care like dem dur Komnist Kubans?!" by implying that the questioner likely had no idea what he was asking anyway.

When an Iowa resident asked former senator John Edwards Thursday whether the United States should follow the Cuban healthcare model, the 2004 vice presidential contender deflected the question by saying he didn't know enough to answer the question.

"I'm going to be honest with you -- I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system," Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. "Is it a government-run system?"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sicko-twister.html

Now, sure, I would rather have had Edwards, who at the time was hanging out of the window of his bus autographing campaign signs, directly challenge the dumb-ass turd by asking him what exactly connected Edwards' health care proposals with that of Cuba's?

It's a dumb-ass moronic right wing turd point that suggests that Canada, Australia, and Western Europe are "just like Cuba" too.

Posted by El Cid | August 24, 2007 2:09 PM

Quiz question: when was the last time someone who talked like that was elected President?
Posted by ostap | August 23, 2007 12:45 PM

Maybe the first time was Abe Lincoln.

Posted by maryinbelltown | August 24, 2007 10:13 PM

Soullite,

1) There is more social and economic mobility and less racism in this country than any other racially diverse country.

2) The reason college is so expensive is because there is so much money thrown at it, via government grant and loan programs. Same reason medical costs shot up after Medicaid was established in the '60's.

3) Some people aren't going to be able to compete no matter how much money you give them for school. In reality, a truly gifted black or Latino applicant does not need to worry about paying for college -- colleges will trip over themselves to offer him or her a free ride. The real problem is that only a small percentage of black and Latino kids can compete academically with whites or Asians. This is true across social and economic categories: even black and Latino children of affluent, educated parents dramatically under-perform whites and Asians on the SAT and other objective tests of academic potential.

4) Income inequality is meaningless -- how does it hurt you if Richard Pzena makes 8 figures per year? You probably never heard of him before you read this comment. The only times when income inequality narrows in America is during recessions, which aren't exactly good for the poor.

5) Edwards is a hypocrite, and I doubt he believes half of the shit he's selling.

Posted by Juan | August 24, 2007 10:40 PM

Edwards is a hypocrite, and I doubt he believes half of the shit he's selling.

Posted by Juan | August 24, 2007 10:40 PM

I'd gladly accept for once in my life a hypocrite who believes half of good and decent policies and will enact them (whether for true or fake reasons) than suffer through one more lunatic Reaganite monster who believe 100% of their maniacal and incompetent nonsense.

I don't really give the slightest sh*t whether or not FDR really "believed" in the sh*t he was selling -- I'd take his policies any day whether he was a hypocrite or saint.

Thank God that the whole pathetic Reaganite movement is finally dying away.

Posted by El Cid | August 24, 2007 10:47 PM