John Edwards is making his closing argument with the voters of Iowa -- and the media elites are having a hard time trying to understand why he is now drawing increasingly larger crowds. That comes through glaringly in today's New York Times piece by the apparently perplexed Adam Nagourney.
In the piece, we learn that:
Mr. Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, almost won the Iowa caucuses in 2004 by introducing, in the final weeks of the contest, a closing argument that drew huge crowds and, polls suggest, rallied supporters to his corner right up until the night of the vote. Now, Mr. Edwards, a former trial lawyer, is offering yet another closing argument to his jury of voters here. And there is evidence -- from the size of his crowds to the decision by an opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, to challenge him more directly in the past few days -- that it may be working.
Nagourney appears surprised by this development. He even tries to make it seem as if Edwards' message is in conflict with the "Two Americas" slogan that has been a centerpiece of the campaign since it began in New Orleans last year.
And, to some extent, this has been the media's problem from the outset. Elites like Negourney don't get that there is an absolute connection between what Edwards says about "Two Americas" -- that we have a few people who are doing quite well while most people are not. When Edwards says this:
"We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that's not true is living in a fantasy world," Mr. Edwards said. "How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action."
...he is exactly talking about the fight by one part of America to take back the country, with another part of the country -- the elites, particularly in business -- determined to hold on to its power and privilege.
In the article, Nagourney quotes from the Des Moines Register endorsement of Sen. Clinton:
"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination," the editors wrote. "But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
The frame that Edwards' message is "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric" makes it even more difficult for the elites to understand why Edwards has strong appeal. These folks don't understand what many Americans understand:
We don't need a candidate -- or, for that matter, a president -- who believes that their job is to get along with business, or that the way to turn things around in America is to have a pleasant conversation with business. This has been the chain around our collective necks for lo these many decades. We need a president who, first and foremost, understands the interests of working people and, then, asks the question: how can business serve those interests?
We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.
We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.
We need a president who understands what it means to support unions.
The media has never gotten this. And so reporters and columnists (with some exceptions) have repeatedly recoiled at Edwards' message. They find it distasteful. They find it "harsh."
What they can't understand is the truth because, after all, it threatens their own perception of the world and, in many cases, it may threaten their very standing in the pecking order down the road.
And, so, they stand, astonished, by the growing crowds for Edwards. I don't know if this means that Edwards wins. I do know that he has framed the debate in this primary and is trying to create a conversation in the country that lasts beyond the election. We can all be thankful for that.