Small Samples for Edwards

CNN's Mary Snow reported after the debate: "Twenty-three registered Democrats came in here undecided. We asked them who they felt performed the best in this debate and they concluded they felt that John Edwards performed the best, with Senator Clinton right behind him. Now of course, this is unscientific, but also the other question posed to them. If the election were held today, who would you vote for? And in that question, John Edwards came in first, Senator Barack Obama second, and Senator Clinton came in third." The Fox News focus group felt the same way. That's not how I felt watching the debate. For me, the best cure for developing pro-Edwards leanings is always to actually watch him in action: I find his persona self-righteous and a bit annoying, but the evidence has consistently been that most people don't feel that way, and this afternoon's focus groups are no exception.

Incidentally, I wonder about the mid-afternoon debate. This is very convenient for professional political journalists, since it allows us to discharge a work obligation during regular business hours, but it seems awfully inconvenient for the average people who are nominally the audience for these things. I wonder if the scheduling is just a slight post-modern nod at the reality that the chattering class is, in fact, the real audience for these things.

Comments

It's very convenient if you're retired, certainly more convenient than 8pm. And it's rebroadcast at night, right?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | December 13, 2007 5:22 PM

I'm confused, I thought the Fox group went heavy-Obama. I didn't watch it (I'm at work), but the YouTube stuff seems all Obama. Am I wrong?

Here's wha Sullivan linked to:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/fearlessness-ge.html

Posted by matthewc | December 13, 2007 5:23 PM

" I find his persona self-righteous and a bit annoying, but the evidence has consistently been that most people don't feel that way, and this afternoon's focus groups are no exception."

You are not a working-class Iowan living in a rural area with a family and slowly dimming job prospects concerned about your healthcare.

You're not the target audience.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 5:25 PM

I think this is a very conscious nod on behalf of the campaigns to bury the debate during the workday so as not too many people watch it.

At best it was status quo. But since most people will experience it through post-debate coverage, Obama's repartee with Hillary will be the most memorable moment.

PS. If most people in the focus group came in to support Edwards, then Clinton coming in second -whereas she's third in their preference- shows she had a better debate.

Personally, I think everyone had solid performances and if anything the second tier candidates got more chance to shine and win some votes. For example, I liked that Dodd was the only one in favor of a carbon tax.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 13, 2007 5:26 PM

"I'm confused, I thought the Fox group went heavy-Obama."

Confused indeed.

Edwards won both CNN and Fox dial-turners.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 5:27 PM

It is rebroadcast on C-SPAN2 at 8:00 pm CST. I'll be watching.

Posted by Larry Geater | December 13, 2007 5:28 PM

"PS. If most people in the focus group came in to support Edwards, then Clinton coming in second -whereas she's third in their preference- shows she had a better debate."

All focus group IA Dem members for both Fox and CNN came into the debate undecided. Thus there is no way to spin those focus groups as Edwards wins.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 5:30 PM

Imagine that, a white upper class male finds the populist candidate to be self righteous. I'm shocked.

Posted by soulite | December 13, 2007 5:33 PM

If they came undecided, then I am wrong.

But saying that Edwards won the debate based on the opinion of 50 people, a number which carries a margin of error of more than 20% is indeed spinning.

Focus groups show dynamics not quantifiable measurement. Edwards did good. But so did Obama and Hillary.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 13, 2007 5:35 PM

"Imagine that, a white upper class male finds the populist candidate to be self righteous. I'm shocked."

As opposed to the white upper class male finding the white upper class male candidate self righteous?

Shocked indeed.

Posted by S.G.E.W. | December 13, 2007 5:38 PM

If people came in undecided, and then decided on Edwards, how can someone spin that as anything but an Edwards win, at least among these groups?

Posted by soulite | December 13, 2007 5:38 PM

Well, that explains why Edwards has been struck in neutral. If black and female voters are drawn to Hillary and Obama, and white upper class men are turned off by Edwards, that pretty much takes care of the bulk of the Democratic base.

Posted by Vasquez | December 13, 2007 5:41 PM

I find his persona self-righteous and a bit annoying

You never were up for a little class warfare, rich boy.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | December 13, 2007 5:44 PM

Well, as a middle-class white male from a working class family, I have to say I don't find Edwards believable enough to classify as self-righteous.

Posted by matthewc | December 13, 2007 5:44 PM

Some video proof of how Edwards did in the Luntz focus group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDzpwCeyOdM

Posted by Clark | December 13, 2007 5:44 PM

"You're not the target audience."

You mean Edwards wasn't going for the DC elite, too-cool-for-school, authenticity-fetishizing, Ivy League, ironic, jaded, wink- wink blogger demo?

It's not only his agenda that's populist, it's his personality and aura as well.

Non-elites like the guy.

Posted by David Mizner | December 13, 2007 5:45 PM

"self-righteous and a bit annoying"

Yep, just like various aspects of American folkways.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 13, 2007 5:55 PM

Edwards: the safest bet for a primary voter, if you're interested in assuring a a victory in the general.

Posted by DC | December 13, 2007 6:09 PM

The word you're looking for Matt is "phony." Edwards is the Democratic Mitt Romney. He's running on positions that are the opposite of what he held when he was a DLC, Iraq war supporting Senator. His new positions conveniently perfectly align with the Democratic base.

Posted by Ron | December 13, 2007 6:10 PM

I just don't think 'self-righteous' is accurate, even as a reflection of kool-kid disdain. Edwards doesn't at all claim or affect an exalted moral status, nor puffs himself or augments his moral profile in accusing others, which are what 'self-righteous' connotes for me.

The right word for what in Edwards seems to provoke the gag reflex among the coolerati is earnestness, which they either regard as insincere (with no evidence except their own powers of judgment, presumably honed with a lifetime of reading novels and reviews of rock albums), or simply loathe for its own sake regardless of whether or not it is sincere.

Posted by kth | December 13, 2007 6:11 PM

Ron,

Edwards views don't perfectly align with the democratic base.They perfectly align with the 15% of the Democratic base which supports him.

Despite the comments here, the Democratic party isn't a populist party; there' s a strong populist contingency, but it isn't a populist party.

That's why Edwards isn't going up or down while his committed troops remain fired up through and through.

And really, the fetishization of the poor as being entitled to have better and/or more genuine opinions getting irksome. There's nothing that makes Matt's opinion less significant or valid than anyone else's.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 13, 2007 6:20 PM

Matt, aren't you just engaging in chattering-class warfare?

Posted by The Confidence Man | December 13, 2007 6:20 PM

>There's nothing that makes Matt's opinion less significant or valid than anyone else's.

Unfortunately there is also nothing that makes it more significant or valid, and having a public blog is sort of announcing you think you have something to say people should listen to.

But then I admit I've never understood the appeal of Obama.

Posted by tdraicer | December 13, 2007 6:23 PM

Edwards looks slick and phony, but he is the real deal. He really did grow up in textile mill towns and played football with awfully tough mill kids and against the same. He played well enough to get a shot as a walk-on at Clemson as a defensive back which means he was willing to take on 250 pound running backs at full speed head on. He also really did win hundreds of millions of dollars in awards against the top legal talent in the country. My college roommate's brother played football with him in HS and swears he was tough as nails. I have never been able to figure out why he looks and sounds so unlike what he is. I am from one of these NC mill towns and I have the same impression as Matt. Ripping Cheney's head off in the VP debate would have been a good start in changing my perception.

Posted by Th | December 13, 2007 6:38 PM

I find Edwards sincere and articulate, Stangely after reading John Alters "A Defining Moment" last summer I realize Edwards has similar traits to FDR.
Edwards doesn't need the grief of this campaign, plus the abuse given by the MSM. He is a self made millionaire, educated himself by hard work. I find him an american patriot. Stange whenever a "natural" comes along there will always be the detracters without any real reason for discent.
Its like they looked into a mirror and didn't like what they saw.

RMF

Posted by rm forsyth | December 13, 2007 6:43 PM

And really, the fetishization of the poor as being entitled to have better and/or more genuine opinions getting irksome.

No kidding. Maybe it's about time we done something about that. You can't pick up a major newspaper without some impoverished wag staring down at you from the editorial pages, running their stupid mouth off about something or other. If I turn on the radio, all you get is a 24 hour "poor a thon" where it's "homeless person gives a lecture on this" and "laid off worker leads a discussion on that". And if I have to turn on one of the Sunday morning talk shows and listen to a bunch of advertisements from poor black eastern NC farmers' organizations one more time, I'll scream.

Somebody needs to stand up and say that rich people have legitimate opinions too. It's time to end the discussion domination of the poor and their fiendish monopolization of 'legitimacy'.

Posted by El Cid | December 13, 2007 6:51 PM

I keep hearing that "non-elites" like Edwards, but I've never met an actual non-elite who does. The apolotical-type people I've talked to about the race are either Rs for McCain or Rudy (or, once or twice, Ron Paul, but never Romney or Huck) or Ds for Hillary or Obama. Granted, it's a small sample, but I've never, ever heard anyone say they like Edwards in person. I read about it on the internets, but I've never observed this phenomenon in person.

Posted by too many steves | December 13, 2007 6:59 PM

Matt writes, of Edwards:

I find his persona...

Aw, come on, Matt. Personality-driven coverage?

Say, that guy we elected because we wanted to sit down and have a beer with him -- How's that working out?

There's exactly criterion that matters to me: policy outcomes. I think Edwards is best equipped to deliver those outcomes because he understands the country's problems, and who's responsible for them, better than anyone else.

Posted by lambert strether | December 13, 2007 7:21 PM

Re: the "fetishization of poverty"

There's nothing that makes Matt's opinion less significant or valid than anyone else's.

The opinions and people who have experienced poverty or something close to it obviously don't deserve heightened consideration over Matt's on every conceivable political issue. But if you're talking economic justice, it definitely plays a role. If we were discussing racial justice in America, I want to listen to a person of color.

And Edwards's privileged status on issues of poverty doesn't come solely from his background. It is panned out by his public acts. I picked up a copy of "Street Sense" the other day, a publication produced by DC's homeless. Edwards was the only candidate to respond to a request for his/hier views on poverty, and he gave some pretty decent answers, especially regarding affordable housing policy. Nobody else in the race knows or cares much about the policies of poverty, and when they make a casual remark about economic justice, it doesn't ring as true as when Edwards says it, because he actually backs it up and gives some confidence that poverty is an actual policy concern he intends to act on.

Posted by StJoe | December 13, 2007 7:55 PM

SGEW- Declaring that only the downtrodden have the 'credibility' to help the downtrodden pretty much makes you a tool. After all, it's mighty convenient that that pretty much means those without power never actually get anywhere...

Posted by soulite | December 13, 2007 8:44 PM

Nick, while we may not be an overwhelmingly 'populist' party, that's mostly because we aren't an overwhelmingly anything party. You'd be wise to show a bit more respect to the other members of your coalition. We can make sure the candidates you want to get elected never have a chance either. Try winning an election that 15% of your base sits out.

Posted by soulite | December 13, 2007 8:48 PM

Working class guy here for Edwards. To tell the truth, among the people I know who care and are not Republican, Edwards comes off as the real deal. Even the Republicans I know kind of respect him. The sentiment I hear most often is that he's better than we deserve for President.
And here is a viable candidate shrugging off centrist hedges and slick sidestepping of issues, unapologetically making the case for progressive politics, just as many bloggers and commenters keep saying they wish someone would do. Except I guess what they mean is that they wish the people they already like would do it.

Posted by Kiril | December 13, 2007 10:38 PM

I honestly think some of the Edward supporters here live on the freakin moon. Of the big three, Edwards is almost certainly the LEAST POPULAR among actual low-income voters. Note I said actual low-income voters, not internet guys claiming to speak for the poor they most certainly have never met.

So quit this "holier than thou" shtick. Edwards supporters are as elite and pretentious as they come.

Quote from USA Today on demographics:
---------------------------------------
Edwards draws support from groups that Democrats often struggle to reach: men, whites, moderates and the well-to-do. One-third of his supporters make more than $75,000 a year, the highest percentage of any Democrat. Despite efforts to cultivate labor-union members and increasingly pointed opposition to the Iraq war, Edwards shows limited appeal to lower-income workers and liberals. He does no better among anti-war voters than the other Democrats.

Posted by Beem | December 13, 2007 11:27 PM

My memory stretches back farther than primary season, so everything out of Edwards mouth makes me remember the smart assed, DLC guy that he used to be. I've come to understand no one in America really has a long term memory, and he is going to get away with that "two america" schtick and it really makes me cynical about liberal democracy.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 14, 2007 12:37 AM

"And really, the fetishization of the poor as being entitled to have better and/or more genuine opinions getting irksome."

Damned lucky duckies win again.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 1:29 AM

I, for one, find this "Edwards is the real deal because he worked in a mill" bullshit precisely the kind of nonsense that turns middle America into "real America" that is opposed to the latte-drinking coastal elites. It has nothing to do with poor or not poor, but rather with the idea that a certain kind of poor person matters more than others. Notice that minorites who are poor don't seem to find Edwards all that compelling.

I don't mind Edwards. But come on, he has been campaigning for almost 4 years now, knows he can only win by moving to the left, has a mediocre legislative record, and was a pretty anemic campaigner four years. Maybe he had a real change of heart in between, but I don't remember him bravely bucking the status quo in 2004.

I am perfectly willing to believe that this is a genuine change of heart, but it doesn't indicate super-awesome backbone or that special something that Clinton and Obama lack. He's a politician.

But let's be clear. Edwards supporters believe that he will do better with poor whites because a) he is white b) he speaks with a Southern accent and c1) no one will notice his liberal social views or c2) he doesn't care about those silly social issues like gay rights or whatever (supporters seem to be unable to decide). Ditto for their, utterly unsupported, claims about what Edwards would do down ticket.

I would be happy with Edwards. I would support Edwards. But I don't think the choice is obvious or that people who think otherwise are hopelessly blinkered. Obama would be, in his own way, an equally transformative candidate. And, given his legislative record in the Senate (which is much more impressive than is usually credited), I think he would be an excellent President. And it would be an important message in terms of foreign policy and the repudiation of imperialistic military adventurism.

Posted by PTS | December 14, 2007 1:56 AM

Watch some of those lucky duckies talk about the debate in a focus group.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 2:01 AM

Obama would be, in his own way, an equally transformative candidate. And, given his legislative record in the Senate (which is much more impressive than is usually credited), I think he would be an excellent President. And it would be an important message in terms of foreign policy and the repudiation of imperialistic military adventurism.

Not trying to be nasty or anything, but can people PLEASE stop using the word "transformative" in connection with Obama? I'm not really sure what it means, but it seems like basically the same argument that Andy Sullivan makes for Obama, which should be very indicative of its cogency.

I think what your argument boils down to, essentially, is that Obama has brown skin and a foreign sounding name. Other than those two things, there is nothing that sets Obama apart from the rest of the party.

I was listening to Howard Stern the other day, and he, of all people, made precisely this point in response to the Oprah-Obama rally, saying that Obama was just a candidate with a standard-issue set of Democratic policy positions, which is fine, but hardly justifies treating him like the Messiah, whose election will redeem our sins.

Posted by Jason C. | December 14, 2007 2:12 AM

The right word for what in Edwards seems to provoke the gag reflex among the coolerati is earnestness, which they either regard as insincere....or simply loathe for its own sake regardless of whether or not it is sincere.

kth nails it. This is exactly precisely right. MY isn't the only blogger I like a lot and read a lot who has essentially this reaction to Edwards; for whom the dislike of JE boils down to Edwards' shocking, disorienting lack of irony. Well, I like MY and some other elite bloggers a lot, as writers, and would probably like them as people, but they can go fuck themselves on this one. Brilliant and even humane though they may be, they are a little too comfortable living in the world Ronald Reagan created, swimming in the ocean he posited - which is, of course, hard to percieve when you're swimming in it. Until Edwards - and maybe Obama, too - there really has been no mainstream Democratic grappling with what Reagan wrought. DLC and Washington establishment Dems have been roughly analogous to Eisenhower Republicans, and their relationship to the Dems of the 50s and 60s: 'me too, but not quite as much'. In other words, the Democratic Party has been sort of a huge flailing nothing. We liberals and progressives are going to have to decide what to chuck and what to keep from the Reagan Era, and doing that is not going to be as easy as it sounds, because it isn't just changing some feckless policies. The Reagan Revolution was a cultural revolution. Some salient features of that cultural shift were: extremely cheap, as well as expensive, cynicism; and an attendent overdose of irony, a cloud of fatuousness. The political version of postmodernism.

We need to snap out of it. Politics is not Life and does not give meaning to life. The job of politics is basically facillitate people's finding of their own meaning - in their work, their lives, their art/entertainment, their whatever. Wonks, pol professionals, etc. find meaning in politics because it's their work, but that's not politics' basic function in a country or world.

Electing Edwards would mark a sea-change, and it's not just because of the specific policies he would try to impliment. It's also because he's conciously the anti-Reagan, the anti-W Bush. What is the most anti-Reagan Era thing you could possibly do, politically? Make poverty a centerpiece of your political campaign. Poverty! IOW: Greed is *not* good. Slack, EZ cynicism is not good. A fetished, imaginary, merely symbolic form of individualism (ie rationalized total selfishness), and atomization are not good. Anti-Reagan.

If you other Democrats want to diddle around, continue to cower in the face of the Republicans - some of whom must at this point be bewildered by our uncanny weakness - nominate HRC. Go ahead. Prolong the sweet silly frothy agony. If you want to turn the ship, however, nominate and elect Edwards. Sorry that some of you find him earnest and tiresome. Get a life. And let tens of millions of other people - who, wisely, hate politics - have a chance to dream a little more, and perhaps have a little more of a life themselves.

Posted by jonnybutter | December 14, 2007 3:06 AM

Jason C.

I didn't explain that because it wasn't the point of the comment. And I didn't say he would be transformative, I said that he has an opportunity to be equally transformative as Edwards. I don't really know how big that opportunity really is.

Anyway, I think that, if you look at Obama's foreign policy instincts on a variety of levels you will see a person who has flatly rejected the received foreign policy verities of the last decade. If he is elected, he would be elected with a mandate to change the way that the US pursues its objectives abroad.

Posted by PTS | December 14, 2007 3:07 AM

"MY isn't the only blogger I like a lot and read a lot who has essentially this reaction to Edwards; for whom the dislike of JE boils down to Edwards' shocking, disorienting lack of irony."

I thought Noam Scheiber had some interesting thoughts this evening that seem relevant to this (my bolding):

One other thing to note: Talking to other journalists after the debate, I got the impression that they weren't so excited about Edwards's performance. (That was true of me and Mike, too.) So a lot of us were surprised to hear the cable networks' focus groups proclaim him the winner. But this may be one of those instances of political journalists being a horrible proxy for ordinary voters.

It's not that we in the media thought Edwards was lousy--to the contrary, most thought he was as crisp as ever. It's just that all the material was pretty familiar. If, on the other hand, you were tuning in for the first time today, you could easily have been impressed with his coherence and forcefulness. The man is just a damn good trial lawyer. And the kinds of people he used to persuade in courtrooms are precisely the kinds of people who'll decide the outcome of the caucuses.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 3:40 AM

editing tip: matt, i think a paragraph break after the sentence "The Fox News focus group felt the same way." would have been helpful for your slower readers. paragraph breaks rule!

Posted by logicat | December 14, 2007 4:02 AM

MattL "For me, the best cure for developing pro-Edwards leanings is always to actually watch him in action: I find his persona self-righteous and a bit annoying..."

Sort of like me watching you doing Bloggingheads...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 14, 2007 6:51 AM

In case anyone hasn't noticed, bloggers and their audiences tend to skew a bit wealthier than the party base does as a whole.

The biggest barrier Edwards has faced in this campaign is people like Matt Yglesias deciding that since THEY don't like Edward's rhetoric, they don't think anyone else should even hear it. You can here how the media has affected his standing in those focus groups. After a year and a half of the media telling everyone how phony Edwards is, many of these people were shocked that he does not, in fact, come off as phony unless your upper class and want to dismiss him out of hand.

Posted by Soullite | December 14, 2007 8:20 AM

"In case anyone hasn't noticed, bloggers and their audiences tend to skew a bit wealthier than the party base does as a whole."

One could say the same for the cable news shows. It's no accident that ads for financial services are big on CNN and MSNBC.

This is why I like the Iowa caucus. It provides a means for committed Dems to change the media skew.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 8:25 AM

The biggest barrier Edwards has faced in this campaign is people like Matt Yglesias deciding that since THEY don't like Edward's rhetoric, they don't think anyone else should even hear it.

I'm pretty sure I've consistently mentioned and praised Edwards' policies and went so far as to recommend voting for John Edwards in a post yesterday. I don't think you can write me off as part of a vast anti-Edwards conspiracy.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 14, 2007 10:01 AM

I may be an Edwards supporter, but that doesn't make me forget that there is no working class party in the USA, all policies and discussions are dominated by 'elites', and there is no sign that this will soon by any different.

And so I don't mind that most of these are proxy arguments. To a degree I'm thankful that John Edwards is a wealthy lawyer rather than someone who just walked out of the last remaining archival textile mill with lint in his head, because then the actually elitist Money-Stream-Media would probably be screaming 24 hours a day that all of civilization was poised to be brought down by anarchy, chaos, Bolshevism I tell ya!

The Reaganite / Nu Right attack on the achievements of liberalism combined a fake cultural populism ('are you gonna let them damn pointy headed perfessors tell us what ta do?') with an attack on any policies which *actually* favored those non-elites. That doesn't mean that therefore by default their foes are Luxembourgian revolutionaries, but it does mean that the right wingers happily perceive them so.

Posted by El Cid | December 14, 2007 10:40 AM

"and went so far as to recommend voting for John Edwards in a post yesterday."

Y'know, if you were really committed, you could move to Iowa to enhance your vote, Matthew...

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 10:44 AM

I don't think you can write me off as part of a vast anti-Edwards conspiracy.

That is fair enough. And if Obama weren't in the race, we wouldn't be having this particular discussion at all. Notwithstanding my late-night diatribe above, I like Obama too and would be happy to vote for him in the General, and am pretty sure he too would be a definite break with the past. But Edwards is clearly the stronger candidate, both electorally and just rhetorically, and is the one, I think, to begin the new progressive era.

Posted by jonnybutter | December 14, 2007 10:50 AM

The right word for what in Edwards seems to provoke the gag reflex among the coolerati is earnestness, which they either regard as insincere (with no evidence except their own powers of judgment, presumably honed with a lifetime of reading novels and reviews of rock albums)

I think you'd have to be remarkably ignorant of Edwards' actual record to make this assertion. When Edwards actually held political power he was a pro-war DLC centrist. Like PTS, I'm willing to entertain the idea that Edwards has had a complete change of heart, but by no means do I think that's a given. He talks a good talk now, but I get the feeling he just learned from what hurt him in the 2004 primaries, adopted all the DailyKos talking points, and never stopped campaigning. It's difficult to tell where the pandering stops and the real candidate starts. Maybe everything we're hearing now is real. But maybe it's not. I have never had any reason to doubt Barak Obama's sincerity, and that's the difference.

Posted by J.B. | December 14, 2007 11:38 AM

I have never had any reason to doubt Barak Obama's sincerity, and that's the difference.

I should add, that and the whole DailyKos thing. Those people are bloody lot of idiots. The fact that Obama sometimes bucks the hive mind (social security, etc.) reassures me that he actually has the capacity for independent thought, an aspect in which I sometimes find Edwards lacking.

Posted by J.B. | December 14, 2007 11:42 AM

"The fact that Obama sometimes bucks the hive mind (social security, etc.) reassures me that he actually has the capacity for independent thought"

Ah, yes. Having a candidate who'll side with Tim Russert over the Democratic Party on Social Security and healthcare is soooo reassuring.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 12:26 PM

The great thing about being Barack Obama is that you can pretend that politics isn't what it is: who gets what, when, where and how.

I'm all for authenticity and charm. But pretending that a change in tone and a few tweaks are going to fix America is disingenuous if not downright asinine.

Edwards may not be for real. But of the 3 candidates, he's the only one who's acknowledging just how broken things really are.

First step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging after all.

Posted by faux facsimile | December 14, 2007 1:06 PM

I think you'd have to be remarkably ignorant of Edwards' actual record to make this assertion.

Did you read the post this thread is attached to? MY is not doubting Edwards in the context of his Senate record. The statement you quoted is a perfect summation of very many bloggers' and pundit's essential problem with Edwards.

Your objections are otherwise, and you're welcome to them, poorly reasoned though they are. Obama's SS gambit was bafflingly bad on the face of it, and being reassured by it because it shows a variance with the rather fuzzy notion of a Hive Mind is absurd. Kos (who supports Obama) and his posters are not running for office against Obama.

Posted by jonnybutter | December 14, 2007 1:06 PM

Did you read the post this thread is attached to? MY is not doubting Edwards in the context of his Senate record.

But how can you know that? It's silly to make the assertion that people who object to Edwards' tone do so for no good reason, then when I respond providing a reason why people might object to his tone say, oh, but I wasn't talking about THAT reason... I'm not sure I get that.

Obama's SS gambit was bafflingly bad on the face of it, and being reassured by it because it shows a variance with the rather fuzzy notion of a Hive Mind is absurd. Kos (who supports Obama) and his posters are not running for office against Obama.

Kos will support Obama, but also clearly dislikes him, precisely because Obama is not willing to kow-tow to the Kossacks on every issue the way Edwards does. Kos simply recognizes that Obama has the money and momentum to be the more likely Hillary-killer than Edwards.

And you seem to ignore the possibility that I agree with Obama on social security. I found it absurd when the hive mind adopted the position that there is absolutely nothing wrong with social security. It was a tactical political position taken up without regard for the minor detail that it's factually wrong. Sure, social security isn't in nearly as bad of shape as medicare, but that's not the same thing as being in good shape. Obama's position is honest, it's right, AND it bucks the DailyKos hive mind line. I find that quite impressive.

Posted by J.B. | December 14, 2007 2:53 PM

----"Well, I like MY and some other elite bloggers a lot, as writers, and would probably like them as people, but they can go fuck themselves on this one. Brilliant and even humane though they may be, they are a little too comfortable living in the world Ronald Reagan created, swimming in the ocean he posited - which is, of course, hard to percieve when you're swimming in it"
----------------------------------------------------

Yes!! I think it is a little hard for many people here to see that Edwards' message and so called "anger" is how a lot of people feel. For many, America sucks balls.

Posted by jeff | December 14, 2007 7:39 PM

It's silly to make the assertion that people who object to Edwards' tone do so for no good reason, then when I respond providing a reason why people might object to his tone say, oh, but I wasn't talking about THAT reason... I'm not sure I get that.

MY said: "I find his persona self-righteous and a bit annoying". Persona means 'mask'. No offence to anyone, but because of limited time in the day, I almost never read Daily Kos and I am very picky about who I do read in pundit/blog-land. I like smart, well-educated bloggers - lawyers, foreign policy types - who understand logic and know something about something. I have heard comments about Edwards just like MY's many times before from these, mostly young, people - fairly vague things about his 'persona', and they generally quickly add that they like his policy positions and overall rhetoric a lot and that he'd be a good president; they just don't like something about how he 'comes off'; I've also heard - more than once, that the pundit in question can't support him because 'he's just cheesy'. *You* are insisting that what it is they don't like has to do with his Senate term. How do you a.) know what I'm talking about better than I do, and b.) know that his Senate term is what they object to, even though it's rarely mentioned in this context (except perhaps on Kos)?

Kos will support Obama, but also clearly dislikes him, precisely because Obama is not willing to kow-tow to the Kossacks on every issue the way Edwards does.

You do have everyone else all figured out, don't you?

Posted by jonnybutter | December 14, 2007 7:57 PM

Woo-hoo!

TNR claims a strong rumor that Edwards is getting the DMR nod.

We're going to win this thing, and I don't just mean Iowa.

Posted by Petey | December 14, 2007 8:06 PM