John Edwards' Closing Argument -- And Why The Media Doesn't Get It

[JohnLocke]

John Edwards' Closing Argument -- And Why The Media Doesn't Get It
By Jonathan Tasini--Huffington Post
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
----
John Edwards is making his closing argument with the voters of Iowa -- and the media elites are having a hard time trying to understand why he is now drawing increasingly larger crowds. That comes through glaringly in today's New York Times piece by the apparently perplexed Adam Nagourney.

In the piece, we learn that:

"Mr. Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, almost won the Iowa caucuses in 2004 by introducing, in the final weeks of the contest, a closing argument that drew huge crowds and, polls suggest, rallied supporters to his corner right up until the night of the vote. Now, Mr. Edwards, a former trial lawyer, is offering yet another closing argument to his jury of voters here. And there is evidence -- from the size of his crowds to the decision by an opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, to challenge him more directly in the past few days -- that it may be working."

Nagourney appears surprised by this development. He even tries to make it seem as if Edwards' message is in conflict with the "Two Americas" slogan that has been a centerpiece of the campaign since it began in New Orleans last year.

And, to some extent, this has been the media's problem from the outset. Elites like Negourney don't get that there is an absolute connection between what Edwards says about "Two Americas" -- that we have a few people who are doing quite well while most people are not. When Edwards says this:

"We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that's not true is living in a fantasy world," Mr. Edwards said. "How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action."

...he is exactly talking about the fight by one part of America to take back the country, with another part of the country -- the elites, particularly in business -- determined to hold on to its power and privilege.

In the article, Nagourney quotes from the Des Moines Register endorsement of Sen. Clinton:

"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination," the editors wrote. "But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

The frame that Edwards' message is "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric" makes it even more difficult for the elites to understand why Edwards has strong appeal. These folks don't understand what many Americans understand:

We don't need a candidate -- or, for that matter, a president -- who believes that their job is to get along with business, or that the way to turn things around in America is to have a pleasant conversation with business. This has been the chain around our collective necks for lo these many decades. We need a president who, first and foremost, understands the interests of working people and, then, asks the question: how can business serve those interests?

We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.

We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.

We need a president who understands what it means to support unions.

The media has never gotten this. And so reporters and columnists (with some exceptions) have repeatedly recoiled at Edwards' message. They find it distasteful. They find it "harsh."

What they can't understand is the truth because, after all, it threatens their own perception of the world and, in many cases, it may threaten their very standing in the pecking order down the road.

And, so, they stand, astonished, by the growing crowds for Edwards. I don't know if this means that Edwards wins. I do know that he has framed the debate in this primary and is trying to create a conversation in the country that lasts beyond the election. We can all be thankful for that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/john-edwards-closing-arg_b_77466.html

[Mythsaje]

1. And it's that last paragraph in the post

that most clearly states why I'm supporting Edwards. This is a conversation that we desperately need to have in this country. And the only one with the ability and the will to bring it to us is Edwards.

[Mark Twain Girl]

7. You put that well -- it's about the national conversation we must have

When so many people work so hard and yet still struggle and live in fear -- one job loss, one illness, one bad move, one wrong decision for the sliver of savings we manage to squeeze out of a paycheck -- there's something very wrong. When so many people are so powerless, no matter how hard they shout, there's something very wrong.

Honestly, I don't know if Edwards has a shot or not. I'm cynical and bewildered when I look at the polls... it's a new narrative all the time. I don't think the guy's perfect, but I don't feel like I have to believe the guy's perfect to get his message. Something in his words is resonating with me (against my will -- cynical detachment feels easier sometimes) and he's putting things out there that feel crucial right now. So, even if he doesn't have a hope of winning, I feel like I've won, even a tiny little bit, by the issues he has raised.

YMMV. Candidate charisma is subjective, and everyone thinks his/her own candidate is the best thing ever, I dare say. But at least in my life, my family, my circle, there is a sense that we're on a downhill slide towards something disturbing (economy, civil liberties, public discourse, corp control, foreign policy). It can't be business as usual anymore, and to me, Edwards' words are necessary, regardless of the outcome.

[K Gardner]

12. Stop looking at the polls.. believe he has a shot, a good one :-)

[cascadiance]

10. This is why I support him too. His message is larger than even he is.

If he wins, it won't be just about Edwards being elected, but the mandate of his message that America will have spoken with in voting for him. Even if he backs down from his earlier promises, which I'd like to think he wouldn't do and at this point don't feel he will, him getting elected on such a message will be what we can take with us and build on in coming elections after that, so that we can tell other prospective candidates that we want someone that will do what a majority of Americans elected John Edwards to do, which is to tear out the corporate control of this country. That will reach beyond just the presidential race, and will go into the congress and state offices too. Folks, it is what we NEED to happen! Someone not to win as a triangulating compromiser, but someone who speaks strongly for what we want, and sends an uncompromising message to Washington that times are such that we need a change!

[waiting for hope]

2. Nice article!

and so true.. K&R!

:hi:

[polichick]

3. He didn't pack the court room for nothin'! nt

[Triana]

4. You can't expect those who are part of the problem (the media) to admit to or see...

...the problem. Especially when it helps their profits NOT to.

It's just like Edwards said: They are NOT going to give up their power. We have to join Edwards to FIGHT them and TAKE it back from them.

Otherwise they'll do the same thing a spousal abuser does when confronted with their abuse:

DENY

BLAME

MINIMIZE

You don't GET power and control back by negotiating with such a mentality. You TAKE it back from them.

The lamestream (corporate) media helped CREATE the "Two Americas" that they profit from at the expense of people's lives, livlihoods, our Democracy. Don't expect them to ADMIT their part in it. They won't. They'll distract, detract, blame, deny, minimize, whatever they have to do.

In 2004 they didn't mind Edwards TALKING about "The Two Americas" - but now, in 2008, he's laid out very specific plans detailing what he's going to DO about it. And those who helped create it - don't LIKE that! It's OK to TALK about such things but they don't want anyone DOING anything about. Thus, they endorsed -- Hillary.

[Rambis]

9. Well said

The political landscape has changed in the last 7 years. You cannot compromise with thieves and liars. They have no place at the table now and it is their own doing. GWB wanted to run washington like a business. That business is bankrupt and its CEO should be in jail! The Pugs and the corp media complicit in the deception of the people are not capable of fixing what they have don and we should not let them try.

[Beaverhausen]

5. Fuckin' A!

Excuse my language but that is great! Thanks.

[Think82]

6. Okay, this is what I don't get:

"We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.

We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.

We need a president who understands what it means to support unions."

DO the other candidates NOT get these points? I think it's naive to think the others don't understand these pretty fundamental problems. My two cents.

[polichick]

11. They might understand, but not be able to do much because of lobbyist pressure...

Lobbyists don't pony up funds for nothing ~ they're buying policy decisions. That's what Edwards is out to change.

[K Gardner]

13. ^5, cha ching :-)

[lisainmilo]

25. Well said!

That is exactly right. He is fighting for the American people. John Edwards simply ROCKS, I hope Iowans get it.

[Armstead]

24. It's a matter of seeing the right priorities

Sure, in the abstract other candidates recognize and agree with these statements.

But it's a matter of how clear one's priorities are about them.

There are, unfortunately, many situations in which the interests of corporations are directly opposed to the real interests of people. In such cases, it is necessary to take clear positions on the side of people, and make the corporations compromise. But too many politicians give the corporatyions the upper hand and start out with the assumption that the compromises have to be made by the larger population.

[jph wacheski]

26. corporate money, corporate control, corporate democrats

What are the other candidates saying? every time they ask Hillabillery about taking corporate money she goes off on some tangent and never addresses the issue,. Obama also just keeps talking about how he will have dialogs with the corporate powers,. well that time is past the situation has gotten absurd and now people are seeing the collusion of democrats and the corporations,. Hillabillery and Obama will simply not be able to distance themselves from their votes, and actions, and histories of working with the criminal pirate elites to continue the hog fattening of corporate monopolistic control over America.

Edwards is claiming to be willing to fight them and that is what is needed,.

[goodhue]

8. Tasini would make an excellent US Senator

eom

[DaLittle Kitty]

23. "Rise Up America" With John Edwards Winning Message (Another Take)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/20/74931/844/439/424669 Looks like another take on this article with some additional good points.:)

[asdjrocky]

14. Great post John. n/t

[frogmarch]

15. Thanks, John Locke!

ha...what the Des Moines Register doesn't seem to understand is that it's Edwards's tough populist talk that's attracting JE supporters.

Fine post, John Locke!

K&R

[ScooterFibby]

16. When the government is full of crooks...

... the American people should hire a lawyer. For President.

Imagine the teeth the laws would have with someone on the people's side to enforce them. Someone not in the pocket of the corporations.

[asdjrocky]

17. That's a very good point-

And welcome to DU if I haven't said it before!

[Kurovski]

18. Welcome to DU, ScooterFibby.

:hi:

[CarbonDate]

19. Well, Sen. Clinton was a lawyer.

Just sayin'....

[Catchawave]

20. Corporate lawyer

...big difference :)

Edwards made his wealth off of outsmarting, outplaying and outworking greedy corporations protecting their bottom lines at the expense of the average citizen.

That's what we need !

[MGKrebs]

28. Children's Defense Fund.

[donkeyotay]

38. Reminds me of when Kerry announced JE as his VP. "He's a triiiaaal lawyer!"

They whined in unison. A triaaalll lawyer! As if Kerry had selected Chairman Mao or Malcolm X as a running mate.

[asdjrocky]

36. She represented corporations with Rose Law Firm... it's a little different.... n/t

[DaLittle Kitty]

22. We Need a Top Notch Lawyer To Proscute The Crooks

Edwards growing crowds are testimony that the people are looking, learning and beginning to understand what is at stake in this election. :nuke:

[sueh]

32. Damn. If I could "Recommend" your post, I would.

Love your username and welcome to DU :hi:

[GTurck]

21. With this and

the video with Matthews I feel vindicated in my support of Edwards. These 'pundits'/journalists haven't a clue as to what being a regular American means. That comment by Nagourney about having a difficult time with the business community because of "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric" is a duzy. I personally don't want a president who ignores everyone but the moneyed interests of corporations. They need to be brought to heel and given a proper place at the table (about 20 feet away from the best dishes).
Matthews was such a jerk in the manner of his questioning.
Oh and I am so glad someone candidate doesn't find it necessary to call on God every other sentence as some mantra of anointment. God Bless Edwards for being a true christian and more than a "sunshine patriot".

[mother earth]

27. He's for the people & by the people! What is there not to "get"?

I made my choice the minute he turned down corporate influence money & I don't understand how any sane person cannot understand the magnitude of his stance!!!???!!

K&R because this is the most telling, the most important reason to vote for Edwards, nobody else even comes close!:kick:

[tbyg52]

29. It's the corporations, stupid! nt

[Myrina]

30. Spot on!

:applause:

[peaches2003]

31. Useless

The press is now totally useless. They don't 'get it' because they don't want to get it. The Repugs are most afraid of running against JEdw and the press is doing their usual job of helping them.

[David Zephyr]

33. Very good read, thanks JohnLocke.

:thumbsup:

[VenusRising]

34. Excellent message.

I hope that Edwards can take Iowa. He gets it, and the people in Iowa must be getting it because they are showing up to his closing arguments. Good luck to him.

[ooglymoogly]

35. The headline should read "Edwards becoming more relevant

every minute". kr

[OHdem10]

37. Corporate Journalists have allegiance to Corporate Bosses

It is in their best interest not to get it.

[donkeyotay]

39. Great thread. A little hope for the regular people. K&R. nt

[dharmamarx]

40. It's about the discourse

As some people noted earlier on, the best defense of Edwards isn't that he would support remarkably different policies from the other Democrats (none of us really know that) or that he would be more effective in negotiating (none of us know that either). It's that he is the only mainstream candidate (indeed the only famous American, period) who is talking openly about class struggle. Having Edwards spend the next year standing in front of the news cameras and compellingly discussing class struggle is good for American public discourse. The other mainstream candidates (by comparison) are polluting the stream of public discourse in an attempt to gain more favorable coverage. That's bad for democracy. Obama and Clinton focus on compromise, but the American public needs to know that their rights were won by fighting power, not reasoning with it.

[spooky3]

41. Good article - but the "Two Americas" theme began long before last yr.