Dear John, A message for Edwards

Dear John,

I've been waiting over the past months for your campaign to take off and I can't help noticing it's not.

This is upsetting to those of us who fear a Clinton vs. Obama race for the Democratic nomination. Personally I don't think this country can take another day of a Clinton presidency, let alone four more years. I've held my nose and voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since I was 18 and a Democratic Ward committeeman in my hometown of Philadelphia, but I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton, even in a general election. I know the stakes are high in this election but Hillary's candidacy just smells too damn bad.

Meanwhile Obama reminds one of Bill Clinton, with his claims of being beyond partisanship and his winks and nods to the base of the party, implying that once in office he'll do the right thing. Bill Clinton also campaigned on every side of every issue but got elected anyway because he was obviously the smartest and most capable guy in the field.

In my view at least, Clinton was also a terrible President, picking all the wrong battles, and losing the ones he picked; a man with a big stomach for politics but no heart for the good fight. Clinton talked like a populist but chose not to address the rise of greed as the engine of American prosperity; rather he subtly encouraged it.

Obama handlers are right to cast him as the charismatic conciliator because frankly, that's the only way a black man's going to get elected President this side of the Jordan. But in the miraculous event that Obama actually got elected, the malefactors of great wealth and their smooth operators would do such a number on him, Obama would end up making Bill Clinton look like Eugene Debs by comparison.

We live in a time of incipient financial collapse, class stratification unseen since before the rise of the modern labor movement and impending ecological catastrophe. We need change, and a candidate of change. By all rights, you should be that candidate.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with your message. I think that many Democrats, especially those that vote in primaries, like your message. There is the sense though of a certain dissonance between the message and the messenger, plus the feeling that you're just trying too hard to connect.

I don't think you're going to be able to ignore this disconnect and still win in Iowa, but like Bob Marley once sang, "when one door is closed, another is open."

In one of the Democratic debates, a questioner asked if you believed in a personal God that intervenes in human affairs, or something to that effect. You answered that no, with all that's happened to you and your loved ones in this life, you just couldn't believe in that.

I think the nature of your belief is the key for you in this campaign. If one doesn't believe in a personal God who intervenes in human affairs, what does a person have to believe in? The answer quite simply, is hope itself. Hope is the face of God in this world.

You know this of course. You campaigned on it in 2004. In fact let me quote from the end of your Vice Presidential acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention of that year.

You said:

Like all of us, I have learned a lot of lessons in my life. Two of the most important are that first, there will always be heartache and struggle-you can't make it go away. But the other lesson is that people of good and strong will can make a difference . . .

. . . We choose hope over despair, possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism. We choose to do what's right even when those around us say "You can't do that." We choose to be inspired because we know that we can do better-because this is America where everything is still possible.

Every great populist campaign has had as its' underpinning the implicit religious belief that in serving justice and the cause of the common people, we are doing the work of God in this world.

If I were you, I would take those two paragraphs from late in your 2004 nomination speech and make both a thirty second spot and a sixty second spot out of them. The thirty-second spot would essentially just record that moment in time.

The Sixty-second spot would begin with you on the podium at the convention in front of the cheering delegates. In a voice over, behind the visuals, we would hear a short-compatible- snippet of your current message, that "our society is being undermined by the growing gulf between the elites and the rest of us. Goldman-Sachs and the permanent government have Henry Paulsons and Robert Rubins to fight for them but who will fight for "everyday people" against a corrupt system rigged on behalf of the rich and the powerful?"

Then we would see and hear that same excerpt from the speech in 2004.

(Forgive me if I got a little specific here, but I've been making documentaries for the past twenty or so years and got carried away)

Beyond the two spots, I would-if I were you- sit down and write another stump speech. It would encompass the transcendental themes of the 2004 excerpt, the more pointed themes of today and make the connection between the two.

The speech would say something like, that when confronted with the almost impossible odds against social justice and social equity, hope is God's way of getting us up each day to fight for a world worth living in. This fight is not just for the sake of the poor and the oppressed, but for the sake of humanity itself.

The stakes have never been higher. More than ever, here on spaceship earth, we're all in this together. . . Something like that.

It is a bit late in the primary day, Senator Edwards, but like some prophet or other must have said once, where there's life, there's hope.

I would seriously consider using that before David Axelrod steals it for Obama.

As they say down in New Orleans, bon chance, bon courage. Hope is on the way.

Best,

Larry

Larry Abrams website can be found at www.birdthatsings.com.

Comments

[ystasino]

The trial lawyer who has regretted his most important votes in the senate is somehow a saint.

The guy who became the first black president of Harvard law only to shun the $$$ and volunteer his services to the Chicago community is somehow a special interest clone.

And in any case unelectable because he is black.

What a load of bigoted bullcrap.

[texanna]

I'm not sure it would matter what John Edwards said, the din of the corporatist media is all about the horse race between Hill and Barack. I mean, it's just such an easier story -- practically writes itself. Well, actually it's the same story just different numbers for the latest poll that's out. I'm just hoping the Iowa and New Hampshire voters are getting information and will make a good decision, because I really don't want to have to hold my nose again this year and vote for Hill or Barack.

[maryinbelltown]

Larry - You sound afraid. Don't be afraid. Fear is the enemy in this election process, especially fear of the influence of the lazy bums of MSM political reporting. A President Edwards is an outcome that media corporations fear, Republicans fear, corporate greed advocates on Wall Street fear, but the people? No need for fear that the people in Iowa don't know that John Edwards is a good man on their side. Even the crappy ads by the crappy ad expert, Trippi, haven't hurt John in IA. Hey, the winner often lays back in third until the homestretch. Especially here where John is so hated by the pundits, as they hated Dean, is smartest to come from behind and win in the last stretch. He is running a smart campaign - except for the awful ads. Relax -do what you can do in your neighborhood for John and give up that fear of losing. John has been beating Republicans in head to head match ups since the spring, but no MSM noticed. Now, they notice. Now we're in trouble if they start to see John as a threat - but it is too late for them to scuttle his campaign now. John is going to win in IA: Edwards 44%, Obama 38%, Clinton 18%. No one else will be viable, won't reach 15%.

CNN: "On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent) and Giuliani by 9 percentage points (53 percent to 44 percent)."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html

[BBackSoon]

I have to agree with the article. Something is just way too slick in Obama and it pisses me off that he is missing so many votes and not taking any time to fight in Congress. To my way of thinking a good strong Dem would be worth my vote not one merely concerned with getting elected.

In Clinton (I did not say Hillary because we are not on a first name basis.) I find another triangulating Dem. And I also hate the fact, that with over 300 million people in this country that we should have to suffer another Bush or Clinton. If she gets in we will have almost 2 full generations that have only known one of those two families as President.

[LemmingHerder]

John Edwards carries none of the negatives Hillary carries and is unlikely to provide a rallying point for the far right, sufficient to turn out the votes.

The new CNN poll shows him beating all 4 of the top republican candidates by the highest margins.

He's the logical choice plus I think he truly believes what he is saying.

http://dontbealemming.com/2007/12/12/interesting-new-polling-data.aspx

http://www.dontbealemming.com

[spqesq]

I'm with Edwards. The time is right for him and he's the only one with the courage, confidence and discipline to get it done. Iowa needs to throw the alley-oop to New Hampshire for his slam dunk! Get it done!

[outnow]

My reference to Jeff Faux should have been: "The Global Class War..." His institute is the Economic Policy Institute.

It has taken me a year and one-half to understand what Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan did to the global economy. These policies paved the way for BushCo to use the military might to conquer oil-rich nations and to subdue the unfriendly natives where pipelines are to be laid.

Is BushCo the "cat's paw" for the weak-kneed surrender Democrats who don't have the stomach to openly advocate full spectrum military dominance and enforced globalization?

Polls are showing that a white Southern man stands a greater chance to defeat the Republican nominee in the general election. John Edwards is having trouble getting the nomination. Hillary and Obama are hobnobbing behind the scenes, and overtly, too, to reassure the voters that they will play ball with the transnational elite who really control the world - the party of Davos - the extremely wealth who call the shots in the New World Order.

[outnow]

Larry,

I agree with you completely about everything except the personal God. But then, it depends on how you conceive of God. A higher power, an inner hope, inspiration, awe - it can be many thinks to many people.

Your other points are the most important in your post. For the progressives and proponents of peace we must realize that Hillary and Obama are shamelessly pandering the the multinational corporations that create the very policies that the progressives want to change.

You are also correct in conceiving of the problem as a class struggle internationally to confront and combat the unregulated flow of capital internationally with the captive labor markets where labor's fruits flow but not the fate of the laborers themselves.

For anyone who is truly interested in understanding who Robert Rubin is and what NAFTA and the WTO represent, you must read Jeff Faux' book on the "Coming Class Struggle..­." He has a website at the Economic Business Institute.

The Middle Class (not to mention the poor) are being robbed by the elites that Hillary and Obama take so readily to their bosom and feed off politically in the form of support and contributions.

John Edwards is our only hope.

[slc20]

Obama has been right on about foreign policy.

Edwards and Clinton were both wrong.

Obama was a constitutional lawyer who believes in ethics and transparency in government.

'Nuff said.

Obama 08

[PulSamsara]

Sleeping in the White House does not count for experience. We are a representative democracy - not a monarchy. Are you Looking to 'reap' eight more years of nepotism like the seven we've just had ? Not me.

Although her sputtering machine would have us believe that she is the 'electable' choice - this argument falls unquestionably flat - she will drive more republicans to the polls and does not inspire confidence in her own party... go look at the polling yourself.

I voted for this lady in her NY senate race.
I voted for her husband twice (would have again).... but ignoring all conviction and tri-angulating her response to Bush's rush to 'war' in Iraq was and is unforgivable. Afghanistan,as any a monkey knew, was and is a noble cause. If a person in her position could not figure out what was happening with our rush to a false war- in Iraq - then whatever limited experience she does have - counts for very little.
Worse yet, and far more likely, she knew exactly what was happening.­.. she crunched the numbers and made what turned out to be a bad bet - IRAQ. Ooops! And now we're stuck with what is partly the mess of her making. I will NOT ever vote for anyone who supported the Iraq ruse.

Fool me once...

So NO Thanks Mama - I'm for Obama !

Barak Obama for President of the United States of America .

-Go Barry !

Oh- and Edwards might make a good VP (try it again John?)

[LeeNYC]

Great piece. I'm going to try to figure out how to email it to the campaign.

I am frustrated by the media focus on the two corporate democrats. Actually, frustrated is a mild description.

Sound advise!

[Researchguy66]

Lest anyone forget, Iowa is still a three-way race in terms of presidential preference. The fact that John gets no attention outside of Iowa and New Hampshire is irrelevant at this point. In fact, a win in Iowa would shift the media attention to Edwards in a remarkable way.

[LeeFromVA]

I like John Edwards, but he seems to have too much left over Kerry on him. I think people are too quickly reminded of that miserable attempt to beat Dubya. How could we have lost that one? That's not fair to John, but it feels like Been There, Done That.

[jmpurser]

I'm not an Edwards fan but I'll take him over any combination of Obama and Clinton.

Richardson is another one I could vote for.

[slick56]

i think that john edwards is sadly the victim of not being a woman and not being black. he's got a great message and we're told he's the only democratic candidate that can beat every republican candidat in a general election, but thats all they say it stops right there, he just can't seem to get the talking heads to give him much air time. he beats the republican candidates by a significant amount, more than the rest of the dems, but i'll be damned if he can get much air time on that fact. he's being swift boated by silence.