Why Edwards is better than Dean - MUST READ

[DemDogs]

Long article that hits the nail on the head. Here's a few snippets:

Why I'm rooting for an Edwards surge.
By William Saletan in Slate
. . .
The journalistic case for Edwards is that he's got the most interesting message in the race, ... plus the talent to make it stick. ...
What he has instead is a working-class background (unlike Dean, who grew up on Park Avenue), an ear for plain language, candor about his caveats, and a Clintonesque knack for relating to people and engaging complex issues. Monday evening, he displayed these virtues at a town hall meeting in Concord, N.H. Sweating in the heat, he fielded questions from an unfiltered audience with more one-on-one ease than any other candidate has shown.
...
Like Dean and Kerry—and unlike Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich—Edwards emphasizes fiscal realism. On hot-button issues, he differs little from Dean....On national security, however, he struck a tone very different from Dean's: "I believe in American strength and believe it strongly. And I don't take a back seat to George Bush or anybody else on that issue." While calling the anger of many Democrats at Bush "understandable," Edwards warned that the party must also be "forward-looking, positive, and optimistic."

A Bush-Dean race would focus on familiar ideological differences. Republicans would paint Dean as a gay-friendly pacifist wimp; Democrats would paint Bush as a divisive, right-wing imperial president and corporate crony. A Bush-Edwards race would focus more on defining the mainstream. ...
In Concord, Edwards summarized the clash of worldviews this way:
...The difference between George Bush and John Edwards is, while he honors and respects only wealth, I honor and respect hard work.

Edwards seems increasingly committed to this message... he wove many of his ideas into it—college scholarships, "tax cuts for the middle class," savings accounts, tax breaks for first-time home buyers, expensing stock options, and a "bill of rights" for workers and shareholders—as well as the recent accounting scandals....There are numerous themes in this message, and Edwards will probably spend the rest of his campaign unpacking them....
Edward closed his presentation by framing the election this way:
Do we believe in an America where the family you're born into controls your destiny? Our ancestors left a place of princes and paupers and masters and servants. This is not our America. What we believe wherever you live and whoever your family is, and whatever the color of your skin is, if you're willing to work hard, if you're willing to take responsibility, you ought to be able to go as far as your God-given talents and hard work will take you.

I don't know whether Edwards can beat Dean or Bush with that message. But I'd sure like to see him try.


Slate article on Edwards

[polpilot]

1. I believe voters, although identifying with the underprivileged Edwards,

will give Dean a 'pass' on his more advantageous family environment due to what he's done with his 'privilege'. He was well aware of his prospects and opportunity for the continued accumulation of wealth (i.e. The Bush Dynasty, Frist) but chose a more intelligent and fulfilling route.

Edwards, I believe, lost his working class advantage by appearing, to me, a bit hokey and Beverly Hillbillish.

Dean '04...

[trumad]

2. Deans been living in Vermont for close to 25 years...

Here's one about Dean...

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/n_8376/

[AP]

3. What has Dean done with his privilege?

?

I've said this before: in the introducting to Wealth & Democracy, Kevin Phillips notes that it was plain ignorant and suicidal for the Democrats to try to nominate Princeton graduate, Million Dollar Bill Bradley to deliver a message about middle class opportunity (and, I presume, he thinks the same of Gore).

This isn't the '60s when America had an obsession with James Bond and Playboys, and everyone felt so wealthy that JFK wasn't much of a stretch for the average Democrat (and it also made a difference that the guy's catholicism made immigrants and other outsiders identify with him).

I just don't see how a son of privilege is going to energize the core of the democratic party. Edwards lives a breathes the message the Democrats need to make to win in 2004. This has got to be worth a couple million votes.

[polpilot]

6. Refer to Post #2.

Dean '04

P.S. Edwards camp needs to drop the 'reglur people' comment in his speeches.. My 13 year old drives me crazy mocking this. 'reglur people'..'reglur people'...

Edwards had possibilities until the CA Demo convention. It was apparent there, for me, he either didn't have a message or was polling/trolling way too much.

[AP]

7. You probably have CSPAN on in your house much more than regular Americans

I want Edwards to keep saying it until every American has heard it.

I used to get sick listening to Clinton say the same thing over and over again...until I realized I paid more attention than the average person, who was probably hearing it for the first time. Then I realized that if I was getting sick of it, it meant that he was doing the right thing -- he was getting his message out to a lot of people.

Congratulate your 13 year old for knowing more about politics than most people and then tell him how hard it is for a candidate to get 1 person to recognize the candidate's metamessage, and that, if he's getting tired of it, the candidate is doing a great job.

[AP]

8. As for Dean, I read that article a while ago and nothing stuck.

What do YOU think Dean has done with his privilege that is so great? What sticks for you?

[DrGonzoLives]

10. Yet he's doing just that

Every one of these damn articles about the 2004 election right now seem to be about Dean, after the MoveOn poll and the fundraising successes. I sure as hell don't see anyone getting energized over someone who refuses to even talk about repealing the PATRIOT act.

[DoctorMyEyes]

4. Okay, I read it

Hell, I even watched it on c-span, and I've got to give credit - Edwards did well. Very well.

He didn't draw me out of Deans camp, but I liked what he had to say for the most part, and I was impressed with his ability to just talk to the people.

Despite what the pugs say we have at least three very good and very promising contenders. I'm 99% sure I'll cast my vote for Dean. But, if Edwards wins I won't cry over it.

[Orangepeel]

5. Edwards WON'T be painted as a gay-friendly pacifist wimp?

Bullshit. EVERY Democrat will be painted as a gay-friendly pacifist wimp!

We need a candidate who can take his/her message to the people, because the republicans won't worry about truth. We can do it with money or with an incredible grassroots effort. Although we need all the money we can get, we aren't going to be able to raise enough to outspend the republicans no matter who our candidate is.

Only one candidate in this race has demonstrated the ability to get large numbers of volunteers mobilized in unprecidented ways. If Edwards shows me that, I'll consider him.

[gottaB]

16. gay-friendly pacifist wimp--Southern Vote

latest http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=187">pew study indicates that the South is the region where hostility to gays is highest.

Would Southern voters be more likely to believe negative things said about a Yankee than they would if those same things were said about a fellow Southerner?

Can a Dem win without taking some Southern states?

BTW I read about Edwards campaigning for African-American voters in Michigan recently. He *is* reaching out. His negatives aren't too bad. he has a shot.

[Orangepeel]

21. $200 million dollars

the republicans will paint Edwards as heavily as they will any other candidate with all the negatives they have and can make up. They'll also have a lot of money with which to do this.

How will Edwards counteract this painting? Are you hoping that it just won't stick because Edwards has some magic teflon coating? I don't know about that. $200 million will buy a lot of paint.

[gottaB]

28. Point taken,

orangepeel86, I'm just wondering if Dean wouldn't have a harder time in the South. I'm not a Southerner myself, so my understanding of a Southern strategy is limited, but I'm thinking like a difference between 20% and 25% support among Southern White Male centrists could be critical --about 25% is the number you need with high turnout from African Americans, women, and latinos, who tend to lean Democrat. So if were talking just a fraction of the white male vote between winning and losing, that doesn't take magic teflon, just some charm and likability and being within a certain comfort zone. Maybe Dean can convey that, or maybe the issue isn't that important, or the difference between Dean and the others won't be paramount, or maybe the general election can be won without the South. Just speculating.

[mdmc]

43. I would prefer if Dean

grew up poor and became successful.
Was Gov. down south, instead of VT.
Was a war hero.

I would be in Edwards camp now if he stood up against Bush on Iraq.

Whoever wins the primary.

[DrGonzoLives]

9. Eh?

"Edwards refuses to accept the conventional border between Democrats and Republicans. He wants to move that border to the right, by redefining the spirit of capitalism and turning it against the GOP."

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Move the border to the right? Sounds like a page right out of the DLC Strategy Book to me. No thanks.

And I wonder if all the people who had hissy fits yesterday about Dean's medical marijuana comments will be weighing in here...hmmmmm, don't see them yet....interesting...

Why is everything cast as Candidate X vs. Dean? Jesus, are people really this afraid of Dean? Is that it? Why don't I see any Edwards vs. Kerry, or Gephardt vs. Liberman articles? Hmmmmmmmm?

"Would he denounce Israeli atrocities? He rejected the premise."

That's nice. I guess it's not an atrocity when it's the pet issue of one block of voters you're trying to woo...

[DemDogs]

11. Clinton-Edwards connection

I noticed you missed the connection Saletan made between Clinton and Edwards on this point. This has to do with the pro-capitalism, pro-opportunity, pro-prosperity message. Saletan is saying that like Clinton, Edwards has a grip on the message that will make this a winnable fight with Bush. I'm glad the Dems are committed to the under-privileged. It's clear that the GOP is committed to the wealthy. The question is who wins the economic group in the middle. On this issue, Edwards has it just right. Grab this group with a pro-growth message that is to the left of the traditional "fight-for-the-littlest-guy" Democratic line. Saletan is more a lefty, and its pretty clear this message appeals to him.

[DrGonzoLives]

12. Does this include the "free trade" lie?

Or, in other words, the "let's let big corporations run around the world and fuck everyone over" policy?

[chimpymustgo]

24. Edwards is Clinton w/out the zipper problem.

Smart, charming, Southern - and he cares.
Great wife and family - and he is devoted to them. Go Edwards!

[mdmc]

45. I'll address it

Bush lites are electable.
Real revolutionary democrats are not (although I'm down with them).

Dean and all the moderates ARE the ruling class. Democrats are the ruling class. Slide the GOP away from the center, toward the right, and you increase the votes for dems.

We WILL win, if we nominate Bush. I don't want to win as much as change the direction of the country, and our party.

[blm]

13. Boy, Saletan has really turned off to Dean.

And after all those months of building him up like he was the next Clinton, now, this is the 2nd article that pricks at Dean. He must have finally done some good, old-fashioned investigative legwork.

[CMT]

14. or as usual the press tries to knock down who they help build up

eom.

[CMT]

15. Sorry I just don't buy it

I think Edwards is a good guy, but I think he is running at the wrong time--he wants to be president while still in his first term, he wanted to be vice president while only in his second year in the senate. His constiutents in NC are not impressed with his presidential run. I don't think a senator in his first term will have the experience people want in a president in this day and age. I also think that too many people would wonder why he just doesn't wait and establish a record before he runs for president.

Dean has a record established from several terms as Governor to run on. In many respects it contrasts well with Bush's record both as a Governor and as a president especially in regards to fiscal responsibility and health care--and human rights. Bush can label Dean "gay friendly" all he wants but Dean has become adept enough to point out that this is a overall civil rights issue--if you deny rights to one group you can do the same to others. Also, what about the rights of gay republicans like log cabin republicans and VP Cheney's daughter? don't they matter. I don't think gay rights will be a major issue. As for defense--if you are soft on defense becuz you opposed this war--then there are lots of people on DU and in this country who are soft on defense. I don't believe this to be the case. More and more people are waking up to the mistakes of getting involved in this war.

[DemDogs]

17. Edwards best against Bush

The point, I think, was not whether Dean had excuses for his positions. Saletan's point was that this race is against GWB and if the Dems hand him too many issues, like military strength, like the chance for prosperity, the Dems lose. In this race at this time Edwards is the best candidate because he doesn't give away the issues on which GWB polls best. Whatever you say about Dean, he plain loses these issues with the electorate. I wish it was not so, but it is.

[Abigale Applewhite]

18. Few questions answered by Edwards in N.H.

U.S.Sen.John Edwards of North Carolina held a town hall meeting at Conant Elementay School in Concord,N.H., Monday night as part of his campaign for 2004 Democratic presidential nomination . Here's sampling of what he was asked:

Q..Can you share your thoughts with us on the possible deployment of troops in Liberia?

A.. It is a good idea for us, along with our firiends around the world, to go in and help stabilize the country...It's really important that if we're going to send forces there, we don't end up with a situation like Somalia..where or troops are unable to protect themselves.

Q.. What would you do to help farmers?


A.. I'd set up a national venture capital fund to bring entrepreneurship and business to samll town and rural communities...I would make a serious effort to address te specific problems that affect health care and education in rural America.

Q..Do you beleive there's a consensus among the sciences on global warming (such as) whether global warming is real?

A.. I don't think there's any question about the existence global warming. President Bush, as he did on number of issues, unilaterally disengaged in Kyoto (the site of enviromental treaty talks)..It sent signals to the rest of the world that we don't care.

Q..Where do you stand on stem cell research and abottion.

A..I think the president has arbitarily put limitations on stem cell research that don't make sense at all and prhibit our ability to do groundbreaking research...Y position on abortion is that ...I don't think it's the governments job to tell a woman what she is suupposed to do.

Q..Do you favor a national health insurance program?

A..I Would make sure that the 9 million kids who are completely innocent (and not covered by health insurance) were covered tomorrow by making sure the (federal programs providing insurance for low income children were funded)...For the parents of those kids, allow then into the children's health insurance program at cost. For those who couldn't pay for it, subsidize it. For peopel 55 and o lder, let them into Medicare...My proposal is mor cost -effcient ( than national health insurance.

Q..How would you address the Iraqi war sityation at at a time when we still have ground troops in a very tricky situation?

A.. There could have been more planning...What we need to do whatever we can to reduce the loss of American life..The United Nations,European Union, NATO, all have to be involved ...We should welcome their involvement . It gives us a chance to re-engage in the international community.

Q..If youcould talk aboutthe values you would llik for ina Supreme Court nomination.

A..Many times federal judges not just Supreme Court nominees, fedeeral judges at any level..are the only thing that stands between what may be the popular will at the moment and a constitutional right or a civil right...Thos rights can be abridged and taken away...It is not the role of the judge to legislate..The worry is they sit in fornt of yu and give you the answers they think you want to hear and you end up wit a (Justice Antonin)Scalia or a (Justice Clarence)Thomas....... Mark Johnson

Article..... Charlotte Observer....Charlotte, North Carolina

[Abigale Applewhite]

19. Let's wait a little longer for the cream to rise to the top.

Select the candidate you like an support him. But let's be carefull not to harm one that might rise to the top a little late, don't plant ideas in the head of our competitors. I have been reading your post for a long time, and getting ideas to post on other boards, keep up the good, work. Many democrats are gleeming information from this site that will help in other debates.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. Now just a damn minute....

A Bush-Dean race would focus on familiar ideological differences. Republicans would paint Dean as a gay-friendly pacifist wimp; Democrats would paint Bush as a divisive, right-wing imperial president and corporate crony. A Bush-Edwards race would focus more on defining the mainstream. ...

Now while I'm not endorsing ANYONE just yet myself, I have a problem with this statement. Why, exactly, would Edwards NOT want to paint Bush Jr as a divisive, right wing imperial pResident and corporate crony??

Isn't that exactly what the chickenshit coward bastard is??

Ralph Nader derailed the 2000 election (before the BCE stole it) by claiming there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. The DINO's in congressional leadership have proven him partially right, but the radically fascist actions of this fraudministration prove otherwise. Some Democrats might be acting like Republicans, but some Republicans are acting like NAZIS.

The difference between the two parties MUST be made obvious in this election, and if this is truly Edwards' approach, as described above, then he may not be the man to do it. It goes without saying that Gephart and Lieberman definitely are not. And God forbid Joe Biden should dive into that pool of mediocrity :eyes:

[stickdog]

22. Why Saletan is an imbecile.

I vote environment.

This guy can't get over the fact that he thought Dean was as far left as the media was making him out to be until he saw MTP.

Now he is scrounging around for some other candidate whose platform he doesn't understand well enough that he can pin his hopes on it.

But Edwards?

Memo to Saletan: try researching the subjects of your articles beforehand.

[chimpymustgo]

23. Saletan - like David Broder - GETS IT about Edwards.

It's about the message and the match-up. The article says it all.

[Mike Schwilk]

25. Broder, the doddering "dean' of the DC bloviators

lost all his credibility to me during the Clinton impeachment mess.

[chimpymustgo]

26. Didn't they all? Still Broder knows a real deal candidate when he sees one

He knows Edwards has the right stuff. The profile he wrote in the WP was quite complimentary.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

29. Edwards is a coward

And DEAD WRONG on Foreign Policy. He has NO vision on foreign policy whatsoever and has basically said that he supports everything Bush is doing.

Fuck him. The Iraq is my litmus test. If you support the war and the lies that justified it, you are corrupt. Period. No question. America does not start wars, it ends them. Premptive attacks are criminal. Period. There are no WMD, there never were and Edwards knew it. Period. Fuck him.

[chimpymustgo]

30. You're entitled to your opinion. IMO Edwards is ELECTABLE

and a great candidate. You needn't be profane in discussing him. Just go to another thread.

[Abigale Applewhite]

73. Edwards and Foreign Policy

With The clintons, and Gore to pull from along with foreign policy he has gathered on his own...Where is there a lacking of foreign policy experience?

[MaverickX]

31. No way..

Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence Committee and had access to CIA reports that the Iraq-Nier connection was false. Edwards either knew the claim was false or was too inept to check it out. Instead he just voted in favor of the war. He can't possibly challenge Bush for doing the same thing.

[AP]

32. You have some holes in this theory

[chimpymustgo]

33. I'm darned glad Edwards will be questioning Tenent today.

You are jumping to some ignorant conclusions. How do you know what intelligence was given to the committee? Edwards and the other Dems will slap the truth out of Tenent today.

[MaverickX]

34. well we could easily be asked..

How we know what intelligence the President was given. The point is the Senate intelligence committee has the same access to intelligence the President had. Why didn't Edwards look into it? What did Bob Graham see that changed his mind?

[burr]

35. More tax free accounts for millionaires, reaping the hard work of others.

But in the private sector this is not considered to be "welfare" or "theft", but sucess and ingenuity. And I have yet to see an Edwards plan to provide universal healthcare, or even a plan to guarantee all Americans "access" to a standard benefit package at an affordable group rate.

<snip>
On national security, however, he struck a tone very different from Dean's: "I believe in American strength and believe it strongly. And I don't take a back seat to George Bush or anybody else on that issue." While calling the anger of many Democrats at Bush "understandable," Edwards warned that the party must also be "forward-looking, positive, and optimistic."
<snip>

Is this tone different from Dean's? I have never heard Dean stress anything other than the importance of maintaining America's strength, and to warn against the longterm dangers which threaten our nation's ability to maintain its military strength. Most importantly Dean stresses in nearly all his speeches, his optimistic message that the power of change is in the hands of the voters...not in the hands of the politicians.

If Edwards wishes to criticize other candidates, I think he better first give us some specific reasons to support him. Otherwise he is nothing more than a desperate contender...without a voting base, a specific plan, or a justification for attacking those Democrats who do have some of these advantages. Finally, how can someone claim to be a Democrat and cut a deal with three other contenders to limit participation in joint debates to only six. This is the worst type of crooked politics, made in the same tradition of Boss Crump and Mark Hanna. Shut off debate, the candidates lose opportunities to present their viewpoints without buying airtime...while the party voters are the ones who suffer. If those who can raise large sums of money believe they no longer have the time to participate in more than 6 debates during the primaries, all such participants in this deal have already lost my vote for the next election.

[AP]

36. You sound like you're afraid of Edwards

These criticisms aren't based on facts.

Edwards has said that he's working on his healthcare plan. You'll hear it soon enough. I've yet to hear an Edwards proposal that I haven't agreed with 100%, and I suspect that this will continue to be the case when I hear his healthcare plan. What I have yet to hear from the OTHER candidates is a message which is consistently about working and middle class opportunity and which will clearly reward work, rather than reward wealth.

On national security, I think Edwards is the guy who hit the nail right on the head. He knew that there was nothing that was going to stop Bush from going in, and his message from the beginning was that what really mattered was what America did after Hussein has gone. He has made this the measure of the Republican party, which was smart. He has also made the intelligence an issue. He has said that you can't discount the intelligence without cause, and, he's interested in the cause for discounting evidence (he cross-examined Tenent in the closed door intelligence committee metting yesterday).

If you haven't limned a few specific reasons for voting for Edwards, you haven't been paying attention to Edwards. (And I'm not sure what you mean by "criticizing" other candidates, 'cause he certainly isn't doing this the way Dean does it, ie, shooting from the hip and then appologizing for being wrong.)

As for not having a base -- he's second in fundraising, and has over 5000 donors in all 50 states. Dean has about 3000.

I think you don't understand what the agreement Edwards made means. The candidates, apparently, are afraid that if they appear too much, people won't pay attention. They want to make the debates an event so they're trying to agree that they'll all appear only at the big ones when they can get reasonably big national audiences. Again, this is smart. It's crazy to characterize this as crooked. He's not stopping anyone else from debating. If this is bad for the other candidates, it says more about their lack of appeal (and need for the big names to appear) than it says about democracy.

Your post is like Spin 101. It's a nice try. But it's a little too hysterical and betrays a fear of Edwards.

[chimpymustgo]

37. AP - the Edwards Truth Squad!

Thanks for your articulate, informed response to that absurd attack.

www.johnedwards2004.com

[burr]

38. There is nothing to fear but fear itself...

I only question what Edwards has to fear from Dean, if he truly has such a specific agenda and a broad voting base. Last I heard money doesn't equal votes. I hope this is not becoming the widely held position in this party.

Since when is stating the facts known as spin? Only that article I read on Edwards vs Dean was loaded with lies regarding Dean, and spin on John Edwards. And this reveals that you have something to fear, not from Dean or any other candidate...but from the hollowness of Edwards himself.

[AP]

39. Would that you were stating the truth.

OK, I know that my post sounded like opinion as much as yours did. But I really think time will tell...or that time will prove that your facts are screwy.

The one fact I can cite though rebuts an argument you made in your post. Edwards had about 60% more donors and got twice as much money as Dean, and he's received money from all 50 states, and he's racking up the endorsements, so I don't think it's fair to say that he doesn't have a broad voting base.

I really think the only thing Edwards has to fear about Dean is that a bunch of white upper middle class male voters won't realize who's really representing their interests until after a lot of tears have been shed by Dean supporters after the primary.

[burr]

40. No tears will be shed, only the blood of thoughtless vile snakes...

But people not snakes will rule the day when the Democratic Convention meets in Boston. Let us all act like human beings, and leave behind the satinic doings of lucifer with the poison in which we seek to drown our rats.

Again, I do not know what you or Edwards have to fear from Howard Dean or his supporters. If you look at the contributions of the Edwards campaign most of them come from wealthy lawyers working for the best legal firms in this country. However Dean has raised money from small donors, including mostly middle and working class voters. I am afraid campaign contributions do not prove anything that you have stated. But Edwards ought to be trying to win the support of potential Dean supporters with a specific agenda, not drive them out of the Democratic Party with such harsh criticism.

[AP]

41. Deans money comes from lawyers, doctors and investment bankers

and Dean takes PAC money.

And you have to be joking when you say Edwards doesn't have a clear agenda and Dean does. Edwards has been on message, and clear and unwavering from the start. Arguably, he's doing the best job of setting out his message. Dean, on the other hand is all over the place and it's almost impossible to pin him down.

[burr]

44. Strange...that is what I have noticed of Edwards in forums and townhalls.

You cannot get an answer to the questions that you ask of him. But you can get great quotes. Edwards does not stress the importance of deficit reduction, he still has not released his healthcare plan, and he must be held accountable for voting to send our troops to Iraq. The House and Senate should have investigated the accuracy of intelligence info before the war not after.

Personally I like Edwards, I just have not been given a sufficient reason to vote for him, over Dean or some other primary opponent. And regarding his agenda, although this yields few results, I visit his website weekly in the hopes that he will have added some new, interesting policy initiative worth supporting.

[AP]

52. That's your opinion. I think Edwards has the most

coherent message and set of policies of any of the candidates. I am not exaggerating here, but when he talks about returning progressivity to cap gains tax, and about how America is set up to reward wealth and not work, and when he talks about middle class opportunity, he is saying things that have formed MY OWN coherent way of seeing the world. If you went back over the last 18 months of my posting at DU and looked for the themes that interest me and my opinions on those issues, you could probably pair them up one-to-one with everything Edwards has said. And every time Edwards comes up with a new proposal, it exactly matches my opinion. Since I come from a similar set of circumstances, I'm not surprised. Now, I find myself to have a pretty coherent set of world views which isn't corrupted by growing up the son of a CIA/Investment banker/multimillionaire, with an undo amount of privilege and opportunity. So, naturally, I think Edwards is extremely coherent and specific and RIGHT about how America does work and how it should work.

It's interesting that you look to the website to find out about the candidate. Try doing a search and reading the articles. A man is much more than the sum of his web pages.

[burr]

60. I have heard his talk too.

Middle-class opportunity, tax-cuts, credits, investments...Jesus you would think that he was talking to the junior business league. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but this is government policy that he should be talking about.

I want to know what he will do to keep the government solvent for my generation and my children's generation. I want to know what he will do specifically to stop insurance companies from jacking up the primiums on people I know with pre-existing conditions, and denying their claims. I want to know what he will do to help the uninsured have access to the same type of health coverage available to federal workers. I want to know what he will do to end the slaughter of our men and women in Iraq. Finally I want to know if he is truly committed repealing all, not just part of the Bush taxcuts!

[AP]

62. I think we've established that we have different perceptions

And, by the way, what Edwards is talking about is EXACTLY what government should be doing -- government should be looking after the health, wealth and happiness of its citizens, and it should pursue policies which help a majority of Americans achieve those things, rather than, as Bush does, enact policies which help his cronies to the detriment of everyone else.

Keep the government solvement? Here's what it takes: progressive income tax; rewarding work and not wealth; creating equality of opportunity on a level playing field...all the things Edwards has put at the center of his campaign. If you don't see how the current problems with health care and foreign policy are products of the Bush system, which is the opposite of the America Edwards talks about, then I'm sorry. What you care about flows down from what Edwards proposes. Edwards is striking the nail right on the head. He's not dancing around the central problem of American society hoping that he hits a few issues which get white middle class men excited and angry.

I think what you've decided that you like a candidate and want to think his issues are the main issues. With me, I decided what the issues are, and found that there is only one candidate who agrees with me on every issue.

[burr]

69. Problems with healthcare have been developing long before shrub.

I agree with you, that shrub's mishandling of foreign policy only worsened a huge international crises. The deaths of more Americans in Iraq with every passing day have now become foolish problems, drawing attention away from 9/11 and homeland security. In 1998 and 2000, Edwards was one of my favorities. Now all that I seem to hear in his speeches is babble, and the type of stuff I heard from college cheerleaders.

They can get you pumped up for a good game, but it's the coach and team players who make the touchdowns possible.

[AP]

71. I appreciate the characterization

but I'm not sure where you get the facts to support your characterization.

Edwards is a cheerleader? Bush is the cheerleader. He had the megaphone at ground zero and at Yale. Edwards was actually on the football team in highschool and was good enough to have a legitimate chance of playing at Clemson. And that's just addressing your symbolism.

More concretely, I can't believe all you hear is babble from Edwards. Like I said above, I feel like I have a pretty well-formed idea of how the world works and what the important political issues are (and I have a couple thousand posts at DU setting out my opinions which began long before Edwards started setting out his). Everything I hear Edwards say matches up with my attitudes exactly. It isn't pap or cheerleading, 'cause that ain't what I've beem doing hear for almost 10,000 posts. It's solid, smart, policy positions, along with very smart campaigning.

[w4rma]

74. Final 2nd Quarter People-Powered Howard Report: $7.6 Million Raised

Howard Dean today announced that 73,226 Americans joined together to raise over $7.6 million for the Dean for America campaign in the second filing quarter which ended on June 30. A total of 83,041 individuals have contributed to the campaign overall.

"This campaign is about bringing people back into a political process that for too long has been dominated by Washington insiders out of touch with real Americans,” said Dean. “Behind each of these contributions are the stories of Americans who want to take their country back, and they are making a huge difference."

Fundraising Facts:

**Of the 83,041 donors overall, only 891 have maxed out, enabling over 82,000 of them to continue to contribute funds to the campaign in the future.

**The average donation to the campaign was $88.11, demonstrating that Americans are participating directly in their democracy, giving what they can to reclaim their government.

** Over 62,000 donors gave for the first time to Dean for America this quarter, demonstrating the momentum and growth of the campaign.

“We are building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era,” said Campaign Manager Joe Trippi. “These supporters are not only donating money, they’re flyering in their neighborhoods and collecting signatures for ballot access, they’re engaged in a way they never have been before. This is people-powered Howard.”
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000691.html

[MercutioATC]

48. Do you research your hatchet jobs at ALL?

...Dean gets money from a LOT of different people. Judging by the the fact that his average contribution is under $200 and of the 83,000+ individual donors, only 891 have maxed out (at $2000). I'd say that was some pretty strong evidence that Dean WASN'T getting a lot of his money from "lawyers, doctors and investment bankers".

Seems you could have easily seen that your argument had no merit if you'd have actually READ where the money was coming from instead of making stuff up....

[burr]

51. But I love romantic fiction...

<http://www.pantheon.org/areas/gallery/mythology/europe/greek/dionysus.html>

I also love the Greek Tragedies. For those who have lost the Democratic faith remember the warnings of Dionysus that "bitter was the shame yet did me, when Thebes honored not my name."

[AP]

53. Yes, I researched this at fec.gov

Read down the list...lots of Dr's, lawyers and investment bankers.

[MercutioATC]

55. And teachers, and homemakers, and LOTS of others...

YOU said that Dean's money comes from doctors and lawyers and investment bankers. That's deliberately misleading. Edwards has many more big-money donors than Dean (and there's nothing wrong with that).

[AP]

56. Read the damn list -- there are lots of Drs, lawyers and

investment bankers, and there are PACs, which you won't find on Kerry or Edwards's list. (And you don't see very many investment bankers on Edwards's list.)

It's not a lie and it's not misleading.

Don't make me cut and paste a random page!

[MercutioATC]

63. Go for it. Of the first 2 and last 2 states listed, here's the numbers...

I'm NOT counting all of them individually, but here are the numbers for California, Colorado, Virginia, and Washington (the first two and last two states listed).

California: 10 Doctor/Lawyer/Investment Banker
38 Other

Colorado: 14 Doctor/Lawyer/Investment Banker
40 Other

Virginia: 14 Doctor/Lawyer/Investment Banker
38 Other

Washington: 2 Doctor/Lawyer/Investment Banker
50 Other

So it IS misleading to say that Dean gets his money from doctors, lawyers and investment bankers. A simple count would have told you that. Yes, people with good incomes (like doctors, lawyers and investment bankers) will have a better ability to spare the money to contribute to a political campaign. To imply that these three professions provide the greater portion of Dean's financial support, however, is a simple baldfaced lie.

Look, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your objectivity. If you don't like the man as a candidate (or personally) that's fine. Realize, though, that there's NO candidate here at DU who's supporters will see them libeled.

[AP]

64. 40/196 = 20%. That's a lot.

Also, don't know where you're getting these lists. I looked at the alphabetical list, and, just guessing, I'd say 20% is at the low end (I'd guess that 40% of his donors fall into the DR/JD/MBA category), given that NYC, DC, and LA are probably disproportionately represented in terms of donations, and under represented in a state by state breakdown.

By the way, if you add media people to Drs, bankers, lawyers, you bump up that percentage a little more.

[MercutioATC]

67. 20% means that Dean gets 80% of his support from other sources.

That's hardly "getting his support" from them

Somebody (besides AP) give me a letter (A-Z) and I'll spend the time to do the comps.

By the way, I'd like it noted that the field has expanded from "Doctor/Lawyer/Investment Banker" to DR(which isn't a degree, but I'll asume M.D. or medical executives)/J.D. (atorneys and judges)/MBA (damn near any successful buisness person).

Go ahead, somebody gimme a letter (AP, I'm going for your original definition if you're O.K. with that and I'll even include "media people" as best I'm able if you insist).

I hate doing the grunt work (when it SHOULD be the accuser's responsibility) but I will if I have to

[AP]

Do A and start from the page I linked...

...

[AP]

72. Do A and start from the page I linked...

Some people gave multiple small donations. Count those people only once.

Also, break down the totals by number of donors to occupation and amount of money per occupation.

[AP]

65. I hate you for making me waste my time....

Here is the alphabetical list, unformatted, starting from A. Lots of investment bankers, doctors, lawyers, and media people. Also, some of America's finest industries, like Pharmaceuticals, shows up several times. Software engineers seem to be disproportionately represented too.

I'll grant that lots of teachers show up, which is nice.

http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00378125/90191/sa/ALL

[MercutioATC]

68. I'll get back to you once somebody gives me a letter...

Unless you're willing to concede that the majority of Dean's contributions do NOT come from doctors/lawyers/investment bankers as your original post implied.

Oh, and although Edwards has not accepted any PAC money, I'd suggest you look again at Kerry.

[AP]

70. I never said 'majority'. I believe I said 'lots'...

and I think I'm right. It is lots. For every $75.89 from a manicurist, there's a $500 donation from a lawyer, doctor, investment banker and pharmeceutical exec.

My bigger point is that I don't think Dean supporters should get much mileage from claiming Dean's donations are whiter than everyone else's.

[killbotfactory]

49. Blame the author of the article, not Edwards...

I watched part of the town hall meeting where he said he wouldn't take a back seat to George Bush on national security, and didn't take it as a dig at the other candidates at all.

Edwards actually said he didn't have a bad thing to say about any of the candidates.

[burr]

50. I blame the author and Edwards' supporters for knocking Dean,

I blame Edwards for not having a specific agenda and cutting a deal with 3 others agreeing to only participate in six debates.

[AP]

54. If all the candidates show up at every event, people are going

to tune out just at about the same time the Democrats will be hoping more tune in.

It's unfortunate that you see an anti-democratic conspiracy where anyone else sees smart campaign strategy.

And your criticism makes no sense. The three aren't stopping anyone else from showing up. Theoretically, if they don't show up, it gives the other candidates more time to get their opinions accross. Of course, if you're worried that your candidate isn't going to draw an audience without having one of the all-stars on the court too, well, I guess that's kind of sad. But you should be glad that when it really counts--when it gets closer to the primaries -- and all the candidates are there, they'll be getting more media attention than if all of them had been appearing once every 6 days for 7 months straight.

[burr]

57. You misunderstand me...

I understand that candidates cannot attend every debate. What I am critical of is the clearly worked out agreement among four of these candidates to appear at no more than six such debates during the primaries. Kerry revealed that he could be "dishonoring" this agreement by attending the NAACP forum, when there is no honor in having such a backroom agreement.

[AP]

58. How are they going to ensure that the audience is maximized

if they don't coordinate attendance?

Really. I mean, you're criticizing something that is painfully, obviously smart.

If they don't coordinate their appearances, why do it at all? The whole point is to make sure the maximum number of democrats are paying attention to the maximum number of debates at the moments when it is most important for them to be listening.

[burr]

59. Here is how it should be done.

The campaigns should attempt to schedule time at the least, so candidates can attend televised debates and forums held in most of the major states and primaries that they plan to campaign in. And you cannot convince me that there are less than six major primaries. I remember Clinton participating in primary debates almost weekly in 1992. He even had some one-on-one debates with Jerry Brown, even though he was the sure winner at that point. Watching those debates convinced me that Clinton was the better man, once Tsongas had dropped out. And he always treated Jerry with respect, although Jerry did not always do the same for him.

Bush never debated Buchanan. Sometimes I wonder if you think we should be having primary debates, or should we be more like the GOP in this regard?

[AP]

61. I'm not sure what it is that you think they should do

I love the primary debates, but you obviously have to strike a balance. If you had one every other day with all the candidates, nobody will be watching by the time the primaries roll around, and people won't be excited and won't be listening to the candidates messages at the moment when they are most refined. If you don't have enough debates, nobody will know what the candidates stand for, and they won't care about the primaries.

It's hard to strike that balance. But it isn't some kind of anti-democratic consipiracy if the candidates try to strike a balance.

[burr]

66. OK, have an agreement that includes ALL OF THE CANDIDATES!

Not just four who want to duck most of the debates.

Did I state anywhere that there should be debates every other day? I don't think so!

Let's make our own deal, I won't misquote you if you don't misquote me. Sound fair? GOOD! ;-)

What I stated was that this year's primary debates should be held as often as they were in 1984, 1988, and 1992. There should not just be a few minor primary debates, as was the case in 2000.

[mdmc]

42. the only way I'll vote for Edwards

is if he wins the primary. I didn't read this article, but I'm sure he didn't suggest that the death penalty and the drug war should be abolished. That combo would be the only "news" that could get me to jump from the Dean camp.
:dem:

[chimpymustgo]

46. Well I think you'll get your chance to vote for Edwards!

But Dean supports the death penalty and the drug war, no? I saw his death penalty dance on Meet the Press. I'm actually not sure what Edwards' exact positions are on those issue.

[chimpymustgo]

47. Well I think you'll get your chance to vote for Edwards!

But Dean supports the death penalty and the drug war, no? I saw his death penalty dance on Meet the Press. I'm actually not sure what Edwards' exact positions are on those issue.