There are some interesting conversations around the nets about the Edwards campaign. I’d love to hear what folks here at the pond think about some of this, so let me summarize the line of thinking that has me most intrigued.
First of all, here’s something from Mickeleh’s Take:
Here’s the brilliant innovation of the Edwards campaign: he’s conducting an open, public, empirical test of his own leadership abilities. He’s giving us a demo. That’s a high wire act. No net.
The operational definition of a leader is someone with followers. So here’s Edwards saying, hey let’s get busy and start getting things done now instead of waiting until the election. If people get busy, Edwards is a leader. Kennedy famously challenged the country to, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” But that was in the inaugural address, not the campaign.
Edwards isn’t asking for the order on election day. He’s asking for it today. And the ask isn’t just, “send me money.” It’s take action on issues. If people respond, Edwards will have delivered an irrefutable demonstration of his leadership.
Then Nancy Scola at MyDD started an interesting discussion with her diary titled Nominee, Movement Leader or Both.
As we know, Edwards’ announced his candidacy from the site of a building project in the yard of Orelia Tyler’s house in the 9th Ward of New Orleans, the city still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina. Really, the last two years for Edwards have been an extended effort to show rather than tell what sort of leader he can be.
Edwards seems to want to set himself as the choice of the results-oriented, competence-driven voter. Perhaps once, an Ivy League-degree was the sort of thing that reassured voters that a candidate was on the ball. Then came George Bush, Yale ’68 and Harvard ’75. In making his announcement, Edwards focused on getting things done.
In the comment thread on that diary, Paul Rosenberg weighs in with this:
But Edwards, OTOH, simply strikes me as someone who realizes what it will take to govern effectively, which is an energized base to help counter the other pressures he will face. There will be no time to organize such a base once he’s in office. Clinton thought he didn’t need it, since he was going to cut deals that would be win-win for everyone. He didn’t figure on folks who’d rather see everyone else lose. And he came up with bupkis.
It just seems to me that Edwards knows better. Which shouldn’t really be that hard to figure out.
Just compare: Reagan was a B-movie actor with a movement behind him who sold arms for hostages to turn around and finance terrorists, and he had to publicly apologize for about a milisecond. Clinton was a flat-out genius with an endlessly network, but no movement at all, and he got impeached for a blowjob.
I think we should be turning this around: what’s any Democrat doing running for President who isn’t also trying to build a movement? Because they’re damn sure going to need one once they get elected.
And Joe Trippi, again at MyDD, has an interesting take: Transformational Politics
All modern campaigns and transactional campaigns are built around a candidate who proclaims to the nation “Look at me — aren’t I amazing?”.
The Dean campaign (and any transformational campaign successful or not) was built around a candidate who proclaimed “Look at you — aren’t you amazing?”
This strikes me as essential. More than ideology, or any other factor — true transformational leadership can only come from a candidate who fundamentaly gets that it isn’t about him/her — its about us.
I agree that all of this is incredibly important for us right now. But I actually think its more simple than all of these folks are making it. I think what Edwards is doing is helping us learn all over again what DEMOCRACY is all about. Unless we engage and get involved, there is no such thing.
I’ll end with my favorite quote from the Edwards campaign:
We have to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war.
Edwards on Stephanopoulis this morning: “If a populist is one who believes that the ordinary American should have power and not be overpowered by corporate interests, then yes I am one. I do believe that.”
I like him and am prepared to do what I can to help him, which may be little more than praying for his continued success and health.
really impressed me. I am far away from declaring a candidate but I really felt Edwards was telling the truth this morning. I believe he believes in progressive issues and ideas. He even admitted he just can’t get there on the issue of gay marriage but does want all partnerships to be treated equally. I applaud him for not skirting around the issue. He and Elizabeth make a great team.
I think Edwards answers on gay marriage are the most honest of any politician who still hasn’t made the leap for gay marriage. While he still seems to be wrestling with this(unfortunately)at least he does feel that there is no question that gay people should be given the same rights and protections as married hetro couples through civil unions.
Because of his answers concerning gay marriage-which he hasn’t exactly ruled out as to changing his mind-I’ll continue to hope he’ll make the final leap and realize it is a moral issue ..one that means we are all equal and shouldn’t be denied the right to marry who we choose.
Here’s one of my questions for folks:
One of the things people criticize Edwards for frequently is whether or not he’s genuine. This was true in some of the comments on the MyDD diaries I linked to above. Then, others came along to say that, if he builds a “movement” it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s genuine, he’ll have to answer to the movement he has created.
I’m usually pretty cynical about politicians. But I think I’m a sucker when it comes to a message of empowerment.
So do people think I’m getting suckered again? And if so, does it matter?
what I can’t swallow about Edwards (and he’s one of my top two preferred candidates for 08) is his vote for the war. It shows either a lack of understanding of world affairs (back then), or cynicism and lack of vision.
I hear you on that one, and maybe I’m being “suckered” on his apology thing too. But I’ve watched a lot of the videos of him on this tour of the early primary states, and his openess is rather astounding. In Q & A’s he’ll regularly say right off the bat before answering a question, “I know you’ll probably disagree with my answer to that, but here’s what I think.” He’s at least saying that people need the truth – and I think he’s giving that to them. I guess I can forgive a mistake if someone is willing to generally show good judgement and be honest when they’ve made a mistake.
One of the things that I can’t get my head around is why we have worked and written and argued and picketed and written letters for so long to change people’s minds, but when we see someone who does change his mind, we think it is cynicism, manipulation, or some other negative characteristic. We know members of Congress were lied to, as were the rest of the country. Is it possible but unacceptable to think that he believed this information, but as he got better information, he changed his mind?
Must we have retroactive purity? How far? On how many issues?
We rejoiced that so many Americans changed their minds about Iraq. Do we have to exclude those who voted for the war as acceptable candidates for President?
All I’m saying is, to anyone smart enough, the lies and manipulation in the lead up to the Iraq war should have been obvious. Therefore, Edwards wasn’t smart enough or honest enough to oppose the war back then.
There were opponents of the war in 02, they were not on the fringe, and they had sound and solid reasons. Why wasn’t Edwards among them?
Once again, of those running for president today, I’d like Edwards, Clark or Richardson
I totally hear where you’re coming from and I’d LOVE to know what was going on in his head during that time. I doubt we’ll ever know. If I had to guess, I’d say it was probably the “group-think” that seems to be so prevalent in DC. I’d like for our leaders to not be affected by that, but I also think we seriously underestimate the power it has on them.
But in the final analysis, the point of my diary is that what Edwards is saying is that its not just him that is important. If he can rally a movement to change things, then what we say and do as a people carries more weight in the long run. As Joe Trippi said in the quote above, this is transformational politics and I think its what matters most.
Call me naive, but even the possibility of a bottom-up kind of movement in this country gets me excited again.
Even though I liked Edwards before I had a big problem with his war vote. His changing his mind was done at least a year ago or more when it still was a very unpopular statement for any politician to come out and make.
Any politician who will never change their mind represents a closed mindset and precludes any real thinking.
may make us feel good about “our” position on issues, particularly if history proves us out. But Edwards’ vote hardly merits an inability to swallow him as a candidate as long as the preponderance of his votes, his actions, and is words demonstrate he has a better understanding of world affairs now.
To tar his “vision” because of a litmus test seems harsh and perhaps lacking in understanding and vision in itself. It certainly appears cynical.
As ever, the Sunday morning quarterback position of today (especially in the flushed and rosy glow of the Democratic controlled legislative branch of government, may partially blind our recollection of just how few (a single handful) representatives and senators were opposed to the war, had the vision to know more than the publicized intelligence indicated, or were willing to be seen as unpatriotic in the only sense the word had then — for the war or traitor.
I hope all of us who claim to be progressive, liberal, and Democrat are better analysts of our candidates than your post seems to indicate.
As for me, I find myself suffering from an embarrassment of riches in the field of wannabe Democratic nominees. Choosing my favorite among so many worthy candidates is going to be most difficult. What a change! How wonderful
the actual silent majority of people who believe in tolerance, social progress and sane foreign policy.
The Clinton years made progressives complacent and lazy. Bush jolted them awake.
Edwards has grown these past two years; he was the wrong choice for VP in 04 (IMO) but, today, he seems very much wiser.
What I like about him best is his idea that if the US is to lead the world, it must show moral authority. As I see it, the only way the US will remain a superpower in the 20th century is by leading global efforts against poverty, aids, war and global warming.
With the added benefit of getting to hear Edwards ask what planet GWB is living on.
I have always liked John Edwards and believe he is as sincere as a modern politician can be and still be electable.
Anyone who is good enough for Elizabeth Edwards to marry must be a hell of a man. 🙂
In all sincerity – if you read his book Four Trials and then read EE’s book Saving Graces you may come to the same conclusion as I have. You cannot lose a son the way they did and then redirect your life without a profound understanding of what is really important in this life. And the past two years have been spent heading up the Povery center at UNC-Chapel Hill and working to get minimum wage hikes in 6 states.
“gut” level – not “guy”. Sheesh.
I just listened to “Saving Graces” on cd – mostly while driving to and from work. I can’t tell you how many times I found myself driving with tears in my eyes.
What struck me is that, while others have faced similar tragedy in their lives, Elizabeth knows how to speak from the heart and to the heart in a way that is very powerful. And she is obviously living out the lesson she says her Dad taught her, which is to always let people in to your life.
I’ve said before, half jokingly but only half, the more I see of Elizabeth the more I think of John for having the good sense to marry her. I hadn’t really considered the other side of that coin. I’d say that goes a long way to answer those who still wonder if he is “authentic” or not. I seriously doubt Elizabeth would have put up with him all those years if he wasn’t.
And I think you are right on about the fundamental refocus that must have been required when they lost Wade. A long time family friend, someone my own age who I’ve known since childhood lost a daughter some years ago. She was about four at the time, a congenital heart defect and a surgery gone awry. I went to the funeral and wept as if a member of my own family had died. I could not avoid the thought of how utterly devastating it would be to me to lose my own son of about the same age. No one could go through that and emerge unchanged.
On that same note, I first became seriously interested in Al Gore when I saw An Inconvenient Truth. Yes, the climate science is compelling. His now-famous slide show is very persuasive. But that was not what made me reconsider him as presidential material. What got my attention was when he talked about the accident that almost killed his and Tipper’s son, and the profound need to refocus on what was really important that he felt during and after that crisis.
The accident happened in 1989. He started writing Earth In the Balance soon after. I finally got around to reading that this summer, after seeing AIT. Between the two, I finally got a sense of the real Al Gore, as opposed to the cardboard cutout we’ve been shown by the corporate media.
Which is a long-winded way to say that there are two names that really interest me in the run up to 2008. And only two really. And it is probably not coincidental that the two of them have been through very similar life-changing events. Both have had reason to reconsider what is really important in their lives.
You can’t get any more truthful and courageous than this… universal healthcare and public financing of elections.