Rolling Stone: The Real Liberal (Edwards)

[frogcycle]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15825410/the_real_liberal

The Real Liberal: John Edwards is Third in the Polls, But Don't Count Him Out
--From Issue 1033

Tim Dickinson Posted Aug 10, 2007 1:03 PM

If he weren't rich, handsome and so well married, you might feel a little sorry for John Edwards. Never before in the 231-year history of our republic have the inalienable traits that Edwards possesses -- his fair skin and a Y chromosome -- been anything but a prerequisite for presidential politics. Today, his race and gender stand a chance of derailing his campaign altogether. "There's a lot of democrats who would like to make history," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential online forum Daily Kos. "The party is anxious to nominate a black or a woman," agrees Dick Morris, the former adviser to Bill Clinton. "You have to sign off on either of those two options before you even get to voting for Edwards." Indeed, Edwards has been all but eclipsed by the celebrity candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: He ranks a distant third in national polls, and his $12 million cash on hand is barely a third of Hillary's and Obama's hauls.

But counting Edwards out would be a big mistake. Flying below the radar, the former vice-presidential candidate is pulling off a feat that Democratic consultants have long considered impossible: staking out the most progressive platform among the viable candidates while preserving an aura of electability. In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points.

more...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15825410/the_real_liberal

great, informative article

[frogcycle]

1. four recs and no kicks?

I'll bump it once to see if someone will put it over the top

[question everything]

2. Now five

though I would not exactly take what Dick Morris is saying about anything..

[frogcycle]

7. yeah, I ignored that

saying "the party is anxious to..." anything is a completely bullshit assertion of opinion based on nothing.

But that is all I ever think of what that toesucker says.

[ArkySue]

18. Liberal? I don't think so

Candidate grid for 2008:

[snowbear]

3. Ok.. that cartoon....

I can't tell if I like it or not..

[saracat]

4. I know what you mean. Kinda off putting isn't it?

But none the less. Edwards is the "Real Liberal"!

[Hissyspit]

5. According to this, it's Gravel and Kucinich. Edwards is slightly more liberal

than Barack and Hillary, but not by much:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3453306

[saracat]

6. I think that analysis must be silly because Gravel is way more of a

Libertarian than he is anything else.That throws the whole thing off for me!

[frogcycle]

9. hmmm

I guess I am missing something

As a representation of what the article is saying, I think it is pretty good. A populist candidate , backed by "common people," marching past the others with their balloons deflated.

Yes, it depicts two dems as the ones shunned by the people, when it would feel better to have the crowd carrying "vote democratic" banners, no leader, and the pug contenders as the ones being bypassed. But it is, after all, a comparison of the three.

To me, the article and cartoon support my impressions of the three. Not that the other two are evil, or "pugs in dem clothing" or anything like that. I'll support either one if they win the nomination. I like both ok, but neither has said anything yet to inspire me. They pretty much "say all the right things" and I get this sort of hollow feeling that they know that is what they are doing and that is the level of their passion for it. But I will ENTHUSIASTICALLY support Edwards if he gets the nod.

[polichick]

8. Edwards does have a more liberal platform than C&O...

But some say that's not how he's voted as Senator. (I admit that I haven't researched it.)

Question for all DUers: Do you think there is a discrepancy between what JE talks about now and how he's voted? And, if so, do you think it's just opportunism or have his views actually evolved?

I want a true "for the people" liberal in the WH.

[frogcycle]

10. I do too

and neither have I done a detailed voting-record search.

The problem with those is so many votes are cast on monolithic bills that include good and bad, that it is easy to take votes out of context. Much like Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" that was portrayed as flipflopping, the bill in question actually changed between the votes, and his up-or-down decision changed accordingly. A voting pattern over a long period can certainly be worth looking at, but there is far too much "he voted this way on bill S1234 so he's an asshole" without digging in to what motivated the vote, whether it was due to a single unpalatable provision, or perhaps that the core bill outweighed the objectionable.

So yeah, I think I will look for assessments, but take them with a grain of salt considering what he says now, how he speaks, what his approach is (eg, funding his campaign, the style of his current bus tour with face-to-face q/a...)

He says the right things and is credible now. Past votes, including ones he wishes he could take back, are only a piece of my criteria.

The authorization of force vote is a good example. There was so much fud, any responsible person should have agonized over what to believe of the current evidence and how to extrapolate the "what if."
Plenty of people drew the right conclusion - that authorizing this particular president to use ANY force was like opening Pandora's box. That the holes in the case for authorization were more than just sloppiness - they represented fraud. Those who got it right want to use it to condemn everyone who got it wrong. I myself was conflicted, but then I was not on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "Edwards should have known better" is an easy accusation to make, and he now agrees it is valid. But exactly what his thought process was, what he thought the result of the vote would be should be factored in. And at the end of the day, the question is did he learn from it, or is he so lacking in good judgment that you cannot trust him ever to use due diligence on critical decisions?

I try very hard not to be a one-issue, one criterion voter. So far, to me, Edwards wins on more issues and criteria than any of the others. I still reserve the right to change my mind.

[polichick]

11. Thanks for your thoughtful response...

It was very helpful! :)

[truebrit71]

12. Of the 'established' candidates Edwards is the most interesting at the moment...

...

[truebrit71]

13. Dupe.

Crap. Sorry!

[LaPera]

16. No "Dupe" or "crap"....you just happen to support moderate Obama.....Sorry!!!

I just happen to think ALL moderates are lazy pieces of shit! Middle of the road, no real ideology of their own...fence sitters, which ever way the wind blows, undecided, no opinion of their own, and will at the the drop of a hat actually vote for a fucking republican if they believe he might be the better candidate....never understanding ideology & agenda...the scum, the slim....perhaps I'm not making myself clear...please respond and let me know!

[truebrit71]

17. Um, I'm sorry..I don't follow you...

:shrug:

[GreenTea]

14. Rolling Stone is great and right on it these days - Since the RFK Jr, voting story

they have consistently given excellent political & progressive commentary and opinion - and this one on John Edwards is right on the money as well.

Thanks Rolling Stone and liberal editor/owner Jann Wanner!

[LaPera]

15. Excellent RS article, everyone must read it.