John Edwards In Hanover - Cross of Gold Redux

The following piece was published by HuffPost's OffTheBus.

John Edwards spoke last night in Hanover, New Hampshire, up against Obama at the same time and only six miles distant. Both spoke to packed houses. These crowds are multiples larger than turnouts at Republican candidate events at the same venues and times of day. Here in New Hampshire, Democrats are hungrier than Republicans for a win and are listening very intently for an alternative to Hillary.

In his last ditch effort to contrast himself from both Hillary and Obama, Edwards has recast himself as the newly awakened crusader populist against political and economic plutocracy.

Here is some sample Edwards phrasing: Corruption has infiltrated every part of our government. CEO's are getting golden parachutes; pensions are gutted. Washington awash is in corporate money. Lobbyists write the laws. How long will be allow these big companies to run this country? We cannot trade corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats. I love my party, but I love my country more. This is the great moral test of our generation; it begins with telling the truth. I have turned my head on this for far too long. My silence [on corruption and plutocracy] is a betrayal.

And against Hillary: Who is the presidential candidate (in either party) who has raised the most money from Washington lobbyists ... the defense industry .... the drug companies ... the insurance companies? My corruption message will resonate across the political spectrum. Democrats will not win if we are the party of the status quo.

Edwards is roughly right about the demographic seedbed for class on class rage. Yes, the income gap between rich and poor in America is widest since the Gilded Age. Americans are deep in credit card debt, rising fuel prices and shrinking home equity. But for Edwards, the applause came at the applause lines, but on a one to ten scale only two notches above dutiful.

Americans are pressed, but, at least among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, they are far from subsisting on boiled turnips and chicken broth. For America's huge middle class, expectations are compressed, but not crushed. Americans see the wage-leveling effect or the global economy more as a force of nature, less as a plot to enrich multi-national bankers. Democrats do not see themselves as victims in breadlines.

I asked voters what they thought as they left the room. They listened, but with less than 60 days to the New Hampshire primary, a surprising number remain undecided. Not one was moved to anger by the reformulated Edwards. What almost worked for William Jennings Bryan and launched a massive wave of political reforms one hundred years ago did not work for Ralph Nader in 2000 and will not work for John Edwards in 2008.

Comments

[CyberCitizen]

Edwards could have taken a lot more campaign money from lobbyists and had a much easier run. Instead, he took the high road, the much steeper road, by telling the truth and rejecting lobbyists' money and compromises. A vote for Edwards would be a vote to say that money should not be the DECIDER of policies. If voters select Edwards, that means that other politicians will also have the freedom to choose policies that benefit people--instead of special interests. What Edwards says is that the system will remain broken until the VOTERS fix it.

[Boadicea]

Edwards's biggest problem is that he can't really say what he's already done on behalf of working people while in the senate. He did virtually nothing for us. That fact makes the political nature of his reincarnation pretty obvious.

Since he can't say what's he's done, he's got to make what he will do sound especially convincing. But people know that if he didn't do much on their behalf in his six years in the senate, he's not a good bet for getting much done now.

And, of course, he co-sponsored the Iraq Resolution, and frankly, anyone who couldn't take the time to read the whole intel report before co-sponsoring a war bill and leading the country into a decades-long conflict can't expect me to trust his judgment now just because he sees what a mess it's all become. For three years, he continued to support the war. Hindsight just isn't good enough for a president.

[rixhex56]

Mr. Rubens,

You PREDICT that speaking the truth will not work for John Edwards because you spoke with some people leaving his event, and you conclude, "...a surprising number remain undecided".

I see something very different here. First, there is the large number of people appearing at these events. Next, and this may be more pertinent here, I believe their indecision may not be derived from the source you indicate, but rather from the fact that there is no one, single, candidate saying, or doing, ALL the right things. Some seem evasive; some focus on one issue, some focus on a couple of other issues, but none are saying and doing ALL that we want to hear and see.

I'll say this: the corporate corruption and manipulation of our government touches on ALL the major issues in one way or another. None of the other candidates are doing that in an effective manner.

In the end, this may not work for Edwards; that remains to be seen. But, if whoever gets into office does not take action to start doing what Edwards is advocating, we will all regret the votes that put that person in office.

[Titus]

Edwards has the unique position in this fight of actually waging war against the people he's railing about and winning. While the other guys (and Edwards did this too, let's get that straight) have all had their hands out to big companies for contributions, at least Edwards, in his former life as a litigator had experience competing and winning against corporatocracy. He knows the basic DNA of these organizations and how to get to them. As a president, he'd be less focused on monetary gains as creating a groundswell of ill-will against some corporations like Teddy Roosevelt did against the trusts. No, he's no TR or FDR, but he's saying the right things, and I support his views.

[EspressoAtNoon]

I can't speak for Iowans since I've never been there, but all the polls show that Americans are VERY pessimistic about the economy, the war, our government, and the future of this country.

Both Congress and the President have the lowest approval polls in the history of the polls. People are REALLY fed up and don't feel like the politicians are representing their best interests.

People are as upset about health care and the economy as they are about the war in Iraq, so unless Iowa is far different then the rest of the country I believe Edwards' message goes straight to the heart of why Americans feel so powerless these days. They realize that corporations and special interest groups are getting top priority over the American public at large.

People REALLY want change.

[nitestik]

Let me see if I've got this right: The author of this piece, Jim Rubens, is a dyed in the wool Republican who supports Rudy Giuliani for president.

Rudy Giuliani was once accurately described by Jimmy Breslin as "a little man in search of a balcony."

And if anyone voting in the democratic primary puts any stock in what this republican hack says, you may as well join Rudy on his balcony, and then jump off.

[liberalelite]

I think Rubens may be right, that New Hampshire Democrats are not ready to absorb and echo Edwards's points.

But that doesn't mean Edwards is wrong.

Let's see what happens with the media.

http://www.freepress.net/news/28053.

Just because Clinton wants to co-sponsor the bill against media consolidation, doesn't mean the bill will pass--or even that it has a chance, nor does it mean she will fight against telecom amnesty.

She's picking her battles carefully. If she can get away with backing amnesty by fighting consolidation, the big 5 will keep funding her. Once she's President she can deal with the consolidation issue. And if she has the media backing, she will be the next President.

That's how media work. That's what the Pentagon, the Republicans, and the media companies all learned from fascism, a half century of classified intelligence experiments and think tank media studies, and twenty years of focus groups in American elections.

The candidate who can represent the Pentagon and the media--while convincing the American voters they represent the people--wins.

[realitybase]

Edwards' message is exactly what the repugs are afraid of. I was supporting Kucinich in the primaries, but am seriously considering Edwards to blow HRC out of the water. If Edwards/Obama were a ticket (in that order) I believe they would win in a landslide.

My wife and I are in our 50s & 60s; she's under-employed and I'm unemployed. I lost my job when I was trying to sell my house. We lost 130K in value and are currently unable to downsize our home and living expenses (we will not lose our home). A populist message works for us for each of us have worked in nonprofit over the years so we have no pensions and we'll NEED social security and medicare to help out.

I'm not sure HRC or BO will have the termerity to help solidify the social safety net... and of course, the repugs are just for destroying anything that the New Deal represents.

[Jim Rubens - Huffpost Blogger]

See Jim Rubens's Profile

NABNYC,

In no way am I trashing Edwards, the Dem pol most authentically voicing a real American problem. I am stating that the audience was simply no responsive to Edward's well-crafted, clearly-articulated populist message ... the best left populist in decades. Middle class Americans are squeezed, but I don't think enough to grab the pitchforks.

[Robert59]

Remember the movie "Sicko"? There's an interview with a Brit who helped start universal health care in that country. He talked about apathy. People are apathetic because they don't think they can change the system and they don't see it as responsive to their needs.

40 percent of Americans don't vote in presidential elections. That says alot; some are happy, some are lazy, but most don't vote because they don't think it matters.

If Edwards can energize those Americans he will be a force to reckon with.

And people aren't mad yet because Bush's policies have yet to sink in. The economy's going to crash and when they lose their job and see there's no golden parachute at the end of it or see their taxes go up while millionaires pay less and reap more awards, when they can't afford medical insurance so they only get seen if they go to the emergency room, they'll get pissed and they'll remember Edwards, and his message will resonate.

Still a year away from the election. And there isn't a plug nickel's difference between the Clintons and the Bushes. The Clintons are better managers but they are still corporatists. And the prosperity of the Clinton years had less to do with him than with the dot com industry that went belly up (sort of like what's happening today).

[CatfishJohn]

....John Edwards candidacy is the ONLY viable chance for a real progressive vs. corporatism debate in '08...and how utterly predictable that he has been mostly marginalized by the Corporate Media and inside washington pundits who is turning this into a vapid People Magazine persoanlity contest with virtually no substative examination of the issues between these democratic candidates...in the end, edwards losing will serve the corporate media's interest well- by denying a REAL DEBATE about the issues facing the nation...and denying this man a very , very good chance if running in the general election of winning and returning a liberal to the white house. But for now, he has to battle through the muzzle imposed on him by the corporate media vis a vis the positive slant being given corporatist clinton and of course any republican...

[Camel54]

I'm so happy to see other commenters spelling out the anger we in fact do feel about our economic plight. My wife and I make a good living between the two of us and yet we're having to pinch pennies just to buy groceries. Is it better use more gas to drive further to the evil Wal*Mart for the everyday low prices or go to Kroger around the corner even though we'll pay $150 for enough food to last four days? How can we rework our schedule so both of us can use the more efficient Corolla with 110,000 miles on it and avoid using the new pick-up? Should we use the less expensive baby formula from China even though it has daggers and throwing stars right in it?

I believe you are very wrong, Mr. Rubens. That message is taking hold because it is almost unaffordable to live. For those of us currently lucky enough to be breaking even each month, we can't take any more before we're moving backward. What about my father who is on social security and still having to dip into his meagre savings to pay his bills? We can't afford to help him any longer.

It sucks hard to work and sacrifice for so long to finally get in the black, finally feel like we can relax and enjoy life a little when BAM gas prices, health care premiums, groceries, heating and then the annual raises no longer keep up with inflation. I can tell you that the people we know and share these frustrations with are listening more and more to John Edwards.

[Bluetiger]

He is not asking for anger. He is asking for a Terrible Resolve. When Yamamoto bombed Pearl Harbor he said "I fear we have awaken a giant and given it a terrible resolve"

Edwards is asking voters to look around and in their sadness at what has come about with our shining democracy that in their sadness they act with such a resolve that they turn away from the easy glitzy path to the hard trek to re-establish America. If this means like the Coyote caught in a trap, the chewing off of its own leg then so be it.

[NABNYC]

It's interesting to me that the author of this article, a Republican, would take his time to trash the only Democrat who truly represents the traditional values of the Democratic party.

It confirms to me that the Republicans would be very happy with Hillary or Obama as President, because both are firmly committed to the corrupt political system in which politicians are given millions of dollars by businesses and even foreign countries in exchange for selling out the American working people.

The Democrats spend more time trying to enrich themselves than they do trying to help the American people. I see all the major Dems showed up in Iowa this week-end to hold yet another fund-raiser for themselves. But they consistently fail to show up in Congress even just to cast a vote to keep the torture-loving Mukasey from becoming the next AG.

Edwards at least speaks the truth. And he is attacked and villified by Republicans and Democrats because he is honest about the system of bribery and corruption in our government. Richard Mellon Sciafe is now giving money to Bill Clinton? Does anyone really think the top Democrats and Republicans are anything other than members of the same crime family?

Edwards is an outsider. And he speaks the truth. The fact is that most Americans are being squeezed, and it's going to get a whole lot worse in the coming year. Edwards sees that. Republicans don't, and the top Democrats don't. They continue to believe that the public can be distracted by even more wars, and tee-hee debates about whether the "girl" or the "boy" is nicer. I'm so sick of these politicians. Edwards gets my vote.

[cblcar]

I know I am personally pissed off with the injustice of the status quo. But I also realize no one is going to get everything they want in any one candidate. I like Edwards. I think he is a good decent man and may even make a great president, but I'm supporting Biden because we live in a very dangerous world. The most important issues are foreign policy issues and Biden's experience in that area is without peer.