Is John Edwards Setting The Agenda For The Democratic Nomination?

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/stories/58414

Is John Edwards Setting the Agenda for the Democratic Nomination?

By Jason Horowitz, New York Observer. Posted August 3, 2007.

He isn't raising the cash that Obama and Hillary are, but Edwards has been out front on cutting funding for Iraq and ditching Fox News-sponsored presidential debates, while the other contenders have followed.

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- John Edwards may not be leading in the polls. But, he would like to stress, he is leading on the issues.

- snip -

He rejects the notion that there's anything political about it.

"You describe it as if it is some kind of strategic maneuver," said Mr. Edwards, turning around in his seat to face his questioner. "I'm not waiting for anybody else's position. I know what my own views are and I'm going to lead on it."

But he certainly wants to make sure everyone knows it.

During a CNN/YouTube debate of Democratic presidential candidates on the night of July 23, Mr. Edwards said, almost apropos of nothing, "I would challenge every Democrat on this stage today to commit to raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by the year 2012."

The line drew applause.

On Tuesday afternoon, after a campaign stop about global warming in McClellanville, he again raised the issue of raising the minimum wage. He told reporters that the "inside Washington" types on the debate stage had failed to respond to his call for an increase.

"So I'm challenging Senator Clinton and Senator Obama and all the other Democrats" to match him, he said.

He has raced to the fore on other issues as well. His call for Congress to strip the funding for the war in Iraq, which he apologized for voting to authorize in 2002, preceded decisions by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton to abandon their more measured positions on setting a timeline for withdrawal.

Mr. Edwards was the first major candidate this election cycle to deliver a health care plan, which required all Americans to be covered, and to lead a boycott -- that the other major candidates eventually joined -- against participating in a televised debate on Fox.

MORE

[KharmaTrain]

1. The Corporate Media Has Already Marked Him

Rarely do you hear a news report of Mr. Edwards these days without some perjurative or negative image associated with it. He's been criticized when he speak up...and then he's criticized when his money numbers aren't as big as the others. The guy can't get a break.

[GreenArrow]

2. "The guy can't get a break"

He brings it on himself.

[waiting for hope]

3. Please tell me - How?

If you are going to mention Haircuts, then why hasn't the media jumped all over what Hillary or Mitt spend on their appearance? If it's about the Hedge Fund, then why isn't the media all over Hillary about her connections to Murdoch or Obama's liquefied coal deal? If it's about the House, then please, why aren't the other candidate's expensive and large homes on display? That's the hypocrisy of it, what is omitted is just as telling as what is reported.

Edwards is campaigning for the poor, he is advocating for Health Care coverage for all Americans (BTW, where's HRC's plan?), he is demanding that our troops are brought home and has laid out a comprehensive strategy of international diplomacy. What is it that you don't like?

[B Calm]

4. Edwards is the working man's hero!

[Elspeth]

5. I hope you get an answer.

I, myself, will be voting for Edwards in the primaries.

[GreenArrow]

10. if your going to make poverty the centerpiece

of your campaign, then you don't -- in the middle of the campaign -- build an ostentatious mansion or let your campaign pay for 400 dollar haircuts. It makes no difference whether or not Hillary or Obama or Romney or whomever live in even larger mansions or get more expensive haircuts; such things are expected of those in their social class, and they haven't cast any spotlights on economic divisions so when people find out what they're worth, what they spend etc. it comes as expected. No one is going to brand them as hypocritical because they are not drawing the same sorts of distinctions. When Edwards draws distinctions -- "two Americas" and whatever -- and then comes out on the wrong side of his own comparisons, people will notice. If Edwards had not been talking so loudly about poverty, then the media would have ignored his house and his haircut and his hedge fund. He's been hoisted on his own petard.

"Edwards is campaigning for the poor..."? No, he's campaigning for himself and the "poor" are a rhetorical means to an end. The truly poor mostly don't care about John Edwards (or any other politician), one way or the other; his poverty campaign is a feel good sop to attract middle class voters.

There's a lot a don't like about him, chiefly summed up in that he comes across as a phoney. But he's fooling a lot of people who are desperate to feel good about something, and he excels at that, at making people feel, and hope. But feelings aren't facts, and false hope is sometimes worse than no hope at all.

[CTyankee]

12. The same could have been said about Robert Kennedy when he

looked at the poverty in West Virginia. As a matter of fact, I remember those days and RFK got plenty of criticism from those who did not deem him "pure" enough to be their candidate. They dismissed him as an interloper in the campaign, just using his family money and fame to edge out Eugene McCarthy.

Lots of Dems lionize RFK now for his vision and I would like to think they are right. We'll never know now. But a good example of a rich man championing the poor is FDR. We DO know from his example that it is possible.

[1932]

15. Isn't the article saying he's successful at making his issues central themes for everyone?

[GreenArrow]

17. no, the article is asking whether or not

he's been successful at making his issues central themes for everyone, hence the title: "Is John Edwards Setting the Agenda for the Democratic Nomination"? Yes. No. Maybe.

Edwards' case is presented, then, those of his opponents, then Edwards gets the last word, leaving the reader to decide for him or herself. That being said, the author of the piece clearly is allowing Edwards some substantial leeway, for instance, stating that "Mr. Edwards was the first major candidate this election cycle to deliver a health care plan, which required all Americans to be covered, and to lead a boycott -- that the other major candidates eventually joined -- against participating in a televised debate on Fox."

Note the key words "major" and "this election cycle" in terms of health care plans, major being used because Kucinich already had a plan, which is apparently not worthy of discussion. This reality did not stop Edwards from trumpeting earlier in the campaign that he was the "first candidate", not simply major candidate, but simply the first candidate to have a health plan. Never mind that he wasn't, and never mind that Edwards' health plan requires all Americans to be covered precisely because it mandates that all Americans buy into some sort of coverage. The fact is, that the health care crisis has been an issue of importance for some time now, and Edwards is by no means leading the way on it.

As for Fox News, Edwards once again simply grabbed hold of a popular issue, particularly among the internet savvy left, and has attempted to manipulate it to his favor. He didn't mind appearing on Fox until his poll numbers had shown themselves to be stagnant, (and for what it's worth, Obama was boycotting Fox already for mispelling his name as Osama, so Edwards certainly wasn't leading on this issue either.) Fox may be more overtly biased in its approach, but it is no more contolled and co-opted than any of the other big corporate media conglomerates. It is just an easier -- though tangential to the real issue -- target to hit, and makes for a popular emotional rallying point amongst the type of voters he is trying to attract.

I could go on, but why? Edwards clearly wants to be seen as leading on these issues, but that doesn't mean he actually is. Not that he would even need to be; if he were able to create the perception that he was it might be enough to give him a boost. Then again, it might not.

[kenfrequed]

16. Of course

You know this 'Authenticity/character' thing is a Cul de sac, it goes absolutely nowhere and seems to be the last resort of the desperate. Only candidates that don't talk about the poor, take on union busters as campaign advisors, and are willing to take money from absolutely anyone are 'authentic candidates.'

I am glad ANY candidate is talking about poverty again. Do you happen to recall FDR? He was actually a member of the wealthy class and still stood up for the poor. Was he authentic or was he just pandering?

[kenfrequed]

13. I agree

If you watch the mainstream media outlets all you would really hear about is Hillary vs Obama. A part of me wonders if their early spat wasn't a calculated effort to heighten both of their media profiles, with Obama being set up as 'the loyal opposition.'

Some candidates, such as Kucinish, get absolutely no time at all. But I agree Edwards (my second choice) is getting plowed under as well. I really want the media to stop playing favorites based on the amount of cash the candidates raise or some intangible 'electable' criteria. (Which usually consists of being friendly to corporate interests)

[Hissyspit]

7. Explanation? n/t

[1932]

14. That is such spin, and the opposite of what this article is saying.

The article says he is setting the agenda.

[mitchum]

11. They also attempt to turn his positives into negatives...

he clearly articulates his agenda = "slick talking trial lawyer"
his rags to riches life story = "he doesn't know how real people live"
he is attractive and charismatic = "he's just a vain pretty boy"

Corporate media are blatant in their efforts to marginalize Edwards

[bigtree]

6. I don't see that

the top two would have to feel some challenge from him to actually cause them to match him on his proposals. He just isn't challenging them in that way yet, except in Iowa.

[waiting for hope]

8. And I don't get that -

Do they feel that on name recognition and star power alone precludes them and that they don't need to put forth any effort into putting together proposal? That's extremely disingenuous.

[bigtree]

9. I think they have their own proposals which may not track Edwards'

but, nonetheless intend to address the same issues.

[jsamuel]

18. He is