AN ANALYSIS--MOST won't touch this even with a STICK!

[FrenchieCat]

In looking at two different candidates responding to the same issue, I submit that the manner in which each chooses to respond can provide insight as to their instinctual leadership qualities--

THE ISSUE: Question of whether to allow or disallow lower tier candidates to participate in the upcoming New Hampshire debate;

CANDIDATE #1 responded as follows:

CANDIDATE #1: “The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates’ views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that’s why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week’s debate.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/01/542614.aspx


while CANDIDATE #2 responded as follows:

CANDIDATE #2: "I'm staying out of that. I don't get to set the rules for the debates. I'll let the people who are in charge of the debates set the rules. And I'll be there."
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Debates%3a+Who%27s+in%2c+who%27s+out%2c+who%27s+mad&articleId=d54d1b4f-91bd-4342-aad7-3d11d99b4a05

MY ANALYSIS:
CANDIDATE #1 responds as a take charge leader....who uses only one "I" in his statement as he also includes mention of voters, Democratic candidates' views, America, a New Direction, and "urges" the Corporate media to do the right thing.

CANDIDATE #2 responds as a follower who uses no less than 4 "I"s within his statement which appears to justify why he does not take the lead and instead sits on the fence and wait for others to make the decisions.....and states that "he'll be there"....cause that's what is important; that his voice be heard.....

[onehandle]

1. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that one of the two is John Edwards.

Let's assume that Edwards falls after Iowa.

What are you going to have to talk about on DU?

[FrenchieCat]

2. Don't worry, I'll think of something......

But considering that John Edwards has been running for the past nearly 6 years...it will be difficult.

Personally, I don't think he will lose Iowa; as he is saying too many things that so many, especially on the left have been waiting for someone...anyone to say for so long. I give him credit for being savvy in the department of "promise them the moon, and they will follow".

But I do believe that if he makes it to the nomination (and as the white guy from the South as his electability rationale, he just might).....he will crash so hard during the time prior to the GE, when he will finally be defined, that you will forget that I ever existed.....cause you will be plenty busy being forced to finally defend the guy instead of attacking those who bothered to provide you with practice in researching what you will need in order to respond to all of what Edwards has said and done over his lifetime.

[FrenchieCat]

3. It's wonderful when things are this clear.......

:rofl:

[On the Road]

4. My Analysis Would Be:

Candidate #1 responds as a minor candidate begging not to be shut out.

Candidate #2 responds as a third-place candidate not wanting to be on record as diluting the spotlight.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Candidate #1 is one of the top tier candidate.......

Candidate #2--you have that one correct.

[On the Road]

32. So Candidate #1 is Flooding the Field

Like Reagan did when he expanded a two-man debate with GHW Bush into a seven-candidate debate.

[Jim Sagle]

5. So now we know why Candidate #3 endorsed Candidate #1.

Fuck 'em both.

[FrenchieCat]

7. No, we don't know.....

But we do know that you should have your mouth washed out with soap. :eyes:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. It shows me that #1 is a prepared statement and #2 was spontaneous. nt

[FrenchieCat]

9. How objective of you....

NOT! :eyes:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. Is that not correct? The first is obviously carefully framed...

the second obviously is not.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Objectively obvious? No, I don't think so.

The art of politics is to always be prepared and smart when giving a statement about an issue. If you don't have the information to be prepared, then you can say, I'm not sure what is happening on that front; let me look into it, and I'll have a statement for you at that time.

[ecstatic]

38. So number 2 can't think quickly on his feet? Would he continue reading a children's story too,

like Bush, in the unlikely event of a major terrorist attack?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

41. Why would you compare any Democrat to that piece of crap?

That's just out of line. :(

[The Traveler]

10. At some point, there has to be focus

Frankly, I think Edwards is wrong here. But I understand his frustration. As an example, I spent several hours watching CNN today. I saw Obama spend 10 minutes horsing around, thanking his supporters, showing off his daughters. Nice, but no substance.

I saw Hillary running her usual spiel. Nothing new. One thing is for sure, under Hillary there would not be much in the way of fundamental change ... but we can at least be sure things will be well managed. This is not damning with slight praise ... right now, well managed same old shit would be a vast improvement over what we have been experiencing these last seven years.

I saw much about Mitt (**gag**) Romney.

Then for about three minutes, I heard John Edwards talk about 37 million people who would go to bed hungry tonight. He started talking about doing something about it. Then they cut him off in mid sentence and switched over to Huckabee playing a bass for about four or five minutes, and then back to Romney. Blitzer interviewed Edwards later but most of that was about (believe it or not) Ralph Nader. WTF?

When the mass media is willing to cover 10 minutes of trivial rambling by Candidate #1, and switches to a bass playing evangelist after three minutes of substance by Candidate #2, and this sort of thing is the typical experience ... well, I think you get my point, friend.

I know you have concluded this is all Machiavellian strategy on the part of Edwards ... his talk about the poor and the middle class. But that makes no sense. No one has won the nomination, nor carried the White House, in decades by championing the poor. What, my friend, if it turns out he is sincere?

[FrenchieCat]

11. That's why it is no longer about the poor....but a marathon for the middle Class....

See here:
Edwards Launches 36-Hour "Marathon For The Middle Class"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3924937

He started like this....

Edwards is the first politician who, when he talks to a room full of middle-class people, doesn't necessarily seem to be promising something to them. Sure, he's a little vague about just where the line is between the "Two Americas" -- it's "the rich and powerful" and "everyone else." But when he gets specific, when he starts talking about the ten-year-old girl who goes to sleep hoping that it isn't as cold tomorrow as today because she doesn't have warm enough clothes – it's got to be apparent to any audience that he's not talking about what he's going to do for them. He's making a moral claim about what our country owes to those who have the least, not promising something to everyone who "works hard and plays by the rules."
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/02/how_john_edward.html

Then he got the message that there was a problem with his message in terms of "popularity"....

The Problem With John Edwards' Poverty Message
As far as substance goes, I totally agree with and support Sen. Edwards speeches and policies with regard to poverty. The problem is, from a political standpoint I think it's a loser. Edwards has clearly made discussing poverty a centerpiece of his campaign, and it was what he was working on inbetween the last election and when he declared his candidacy. But as a motivator to capture someone's vote, it's a clunker.
<>
Most people who are poor statistically when asked will likely not say that they're poor. In fact, they're probably likely to say that they're "middle class". It's the same way as if you ask people that are by many standards wealthy, they're also likely to describe themselves as "middle class". I think it's kind of an American thing to want to be part of the middle class, because we have one in this country while other nations you're either really rich or really poor.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/07/20/the-problem-with-john-edwards/

So the question was asked.....

Can John Edwards Appeal to the Poor and the Middle Class?
<> That's not to say I liked everything I heard from Edwards. If I have a complaint about his substantive message these days, it's that it's become too focused on the people left behind–and not enough on those who might fall behind but haven't yet. Edwards is an incredibly compelling spokesperson for the downtrodden, and I'm grateful for that.

But I wonder if he dwells on them too much, losing the attention of the middle class.
I've seen Edwards in enough other contexts--debates, convention speeches, and such--to think he's perfectly capable of hitting both themes simultaneously, of appealing to both the poor and middle class at the same time. I just didn't see it Wednesday night.
http://www.daylife.com/article/01up9WJdPecsB

and the Winner is...(drumroll, please)....

Edwards' big finish: It's the middle class...
The theme for Edwards’ final swing through Iowa will be: “America Rising: Fighting for the Middle Class.” .....Consistently high focus groups dials indicated undecided voters responded with enthusiasm to Edwards’ answers. Frank Luntz found when Edwards talks about health care and the middle class, the scores “can’t get any higher.”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/edwards_big_finish_its_the_mid.html

[JohnLocke]

12. Some of us realize that Edwards fights for both the middle and working classes.

It's gotta suck to come to DU pretty much ever day and trash Democratic presidential candidates.

I couldn't wallow in the negativity, myself.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Shouldn't you be busy spreading your JE campaign Spams

instead of attacking me personally? My understanding is that we are allowed to criticize political figures (I understand this is the democratic way), but that we are not allowed to criticize DUer posters just because we disagree with their message. I see so many attack threads based on lies as opposed to the truth on this forum, I'm amazed that you have chosen to knock on my door. At least I debate the issues in an intelligent manner and attempt not to simply call out posters.

I'll leave you with this lie from one of those "fawning" articles you like to spray around like pollen on clockwork:
Edwards is the first politician who, when he talks to a room full of middle-class people, doesn't necessarily seem to be promising something to them. THAT IS UTTER BULLSHIT!

JE is smooth when he promises everybody everything, which he does all of the time. But that's the easy part that requires nothing more than a pen to write what he'll say with his mouth. It's his attempt in making the many many deliveries on all of those promises that will be messy. It is my guess that he already knows that he won't be able to deliver most of what he says he will....and that's the part that will be most interesting to observe if Edwards gets anywhere close to the WH. Wonder who he will point the finger at, when he starts coming up with his excuses of why so much of what he said doesn't come to pass? I'm sure he won't own up any responsibility.....that he promised the impossible simply to get elected. :shrug:

[JohnLocke]

17. Like I said.

I couldn't imagine coming to DU every day and trashing not only specific candidates, but candidates' supporters. Politics ain't fun and games, but as I said before it's hard to believe ordinary people would seem to wallow in character assassination against fellow Democrats.

I look forward to voting for any of our fine candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

21. You trash me, so you should imagine trashing DUers that don't align

with your particular candidate. Of course, you very much support John Edwards, as can be evidenced by your work here.....but please know that no one is asking you to imagine anything. You should continue to do what you do best....

And I will continue to provide context and truth about John Edwards, what you have decided to call character assassination (which is a bunch of shit)...just cause you don't like what I have to say....

I don't make the shit up, and that's why you have a much larger problem with me then you do with those who simply talk out of their ass....which I don't do.

I'll let you know that I believe that John Edwards can win the nomination....possibly...mostly due to his skin color and his roots and looks and not much else. What I don't believe that he can win the GE...and it is my strong belief that he has yet to be vetted by the media and such.....and when he is, it will be a nightmare for Democrats everywhere. That's why I don't support him (apart from other reasons) during these primaries, and why I make sure that folks aren't wearing their rose colored glasses when they look at him. Sorry from the inconvenience, but as far as I am concerned, I am doing my civic duty.

[JohnLocke]

23. Hmm

I'll let you know that I believe that John Edwards can win the nomination....possibly...mostly due to his skin color and his roots and looks and not much else.

Lemme just say: That is an exceptionally vile comment.

What if I said the following (none of which I necessarily endorse):

I'll let you know that I believe that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination....possibly...mostly due to her gender and name recognition and not much else.

I'll let you know that I believe that Barack Obama can win the nomination....possibly...mostly due to his race and novelty and not much else.

[FrenchieCat]

26. That's the beauty of it....

I don't really care what comments you make.

For the most part, except for now and then, I rarely crash your many, many threads of how John Edwards is busy being great and saying all of the right things.

And yes, I said what I said, and you can believe that it is vile or whatever. But I am not naive,...and hell, even Mudcat and Edwards are in agreement that John is "most" electable...And Mudcat doesn't exactly make a secret of why he thinks that this is the case....no matter how veiled John Edwards attempts to make it.

And no, considering that we have never had a woman or a Black man as President before, their gender and or race have not a doggone thing to do with why they could win the nomination. Since it has never happened before, why should them being in a class of those who have never won before make it more likely that they could win it now? Gender and Race is a handicap and not an advantage in reference to selling points; just ask Mudcat about all of that. I'm no fool, even if you want to give that impression.

[JohnLocke]

29. Hmm

I don't really care what comments you make.

First, I want to say that Mudcat was critical in electing Jim Webb and Mark Warner. I am proud to be on his team.

As for the above comment, I think I will quote Sharansky: "To you I have nothing to say."

[FrenchieCat]

30. That is in line with Mudcat....

since he thinks only white boys from the south can ever win. Nothing new. That's the CW....

[Viva_La_Revolution]

24. "chosen to knock on my door"

Like you didn't open the door wide and place a big ol' welcome mat by posting this type of OP. :rofl:

[The Traveler]

14. But Frenchie

In the brief moment CNN allowed him to be heard today, he was talking about the poor ... in fact, every time I hear him talking about the middle class, he is also talking about the poor. I think that is the fundamental problem I have with your analysis above ... it ignores the fact that the MAN IS STILL TALKING ABOUT THE POOR!!!! (Forgive the shout!)

A man can advocate both the interests of the middle class and those of the poor. In fact, an expanding middle class is a requirement for ending poverty, almost by definition.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Yes, and he'll keep on talking......and I appreciate his words....

and he has brought important issues to the fore.
and I do appreciate that about JE.

However, I believe that most of what he says is said because it works for him politically.

If you must know, I supported John Edwards before I ever supported anyone else in the 2003 primary season. When I first saw him on TeeVee, I remarked to my husband, "there's our next President". He was a Democrat and seemed "presidential" at the time. I remember reading an article in the WAPO on him back in 2003 that made me bawl my eyes out--no kidding; the story about his son's death (that now I feel he has exploided for political points to the extent of it being creepy--but at the time, I didn't think that).

However, once I read up on his actual record, and really read the words he used to sell us the war that we are still fighting, the more I realize that JE is about getting where JE wants to go. That's when I decided to look elsewhere for someone to support. I had marched against this war twice, and had become politically activated due to it. I could not support War enabling john Edwards in the 2003-04 primaries.

By the time he got his 2 Americas speech off the ground, I was already supporting someone else. I listened to his speeches though....quite a few times I caught them on C-span. I didn't want to totally close my mind to him, just in case I would have to support him in the General.

His speech was very well received, and the press corp raved about it, oftentime saying that he could talk owls out of trees just like Clinton. I didn't necessarily hear the Orator skills they had assigned him, but I did like the content of the speech. That was back in back in 2003, and from that point on, Edwards repeated that speech so many times, I literally got sick hearing it. He even would use parts of it as responses in debates....trying to make it appear that he was talking off the cuff, when he was really easily reciting what he had memorized in lack of an answer. he would squeeze parts in here and there, even if it wasn't totally answering the question he had been asked. The more I heard him delivering the same lines over and over again, evoking the little girl with the father with no job, the more I realize that he was a phony delivering his schpil.

The November IWR apology Op-Ed written three years after his co-sponsorship of the IWR kind of took the cake. He was readying to run again (he had never really stopped running) and the manner in which he basically said sorry without really assigning himself any real responsibility besides blaming everyone around him for the decision that he had made, and at the same time attempted to sell us that he was simply uninformed and trusting.

But based on the words that he used to persuade support for that war back in 2002, I truly believe that he supported that war as strongly as he did because he felt that politically, it was the thing for him to do. I don't believe that he wasn't bright enough to see through the Bush admin....I just don't think that he wanted to stand up against the grain of the times. I can't forgive him for that; for leading us from the rear into a situation that IF he had had any courage about himself to do the right thing, he would have denounced the absurd evidence that wasn't evidence at all. He saw it all, as he was on the intelligence committee, and I know it....and he knows it.

I may not give John Edwards much props, but I do believe that he is intelligent and insightful enough to have known better. He just chose to support something that had he had the right character, he would not have been able to do. I can't support that. This country doesn't need anymore power grubbers who put themselves first (even if they make you think that this isn't the case). I want someone that's honest, authentic and serious about changing this country....and I don't get that feeling when I listen to John Edwards...then or now.

Look at his "plan" to stop corporate abuse according to one of his supporters.
I don't see a plan in that OP...do you? :shrug:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3925449&mesg_id=3925449

My point is that Edwards knows what works with activists on the left, and I believe that we are being used for him to get to where he is going..... The number of promises that he has made that will never be fullfilled, will make one throw up if he ever gets into office. I can't support that.

Sorry.

[JohnLocke]

19. Psst.

Look at his "plan" to stop corporate abuse according to one of his supporters.
I don't see a plan in that OP...do you?

Seven-point plan under "Demand Corporate Responsibility."
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071026-corporate-responsibility/

DU really isn't one might call a "primary source."

[The Traveler]

22. One thing is for sure

You remain solidly on the side of the good. We disagree today on how to achieve it ... but you remain on the side of the good. It is a pleasure to exchange text with you.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Thanks Traveler.....

I will say that you were always very much reasonable...and in fact, we are, in truth, on the same side, and have been for a long time.

Good night!

:hi:

[The Traveler]

27. I try to be reasonable ...

but it conflicts with my basic nature ... that of the drunken Irish poet. :) I love knowing people who are brazen in their quest for the good, and you have always been brazen and bold. Good night, bud.

:toast:

[democracyindanger]

20. Quid Pro Quo

Probably just coincidence that minutes before Kucinich's announcement, MSNBC received Obama's statement regarding the NH debates. Probably no chance that this was part of the deal, just Saint Obama being Saint Obama.

Thanks for the laugh.

[musicblind]

28. John Edwards

You know I'm not 100% sure I'd be voting for Edwards if I were in Iowa on Thursday night, I'm not yet sure he's the best person to run our country. I am torn between multiple candidates... but let me tell you this. Unlike some people in this race, I honest to goodness feel like Edwards is someone who BELIEVES in what he is saying. He could have taken many different platforms, but he didn't, he could have taken easier roads, and easier battles to get himself into the White House but he stood up for something that he FEELS passionately about.

I live in NC and I know one of John Edward's cousins. They aren't close, but knowing her helps to reaffirm my belief. Not saying he's perfect. No candidate is perfect. Now, I love supportting Hillary Clinton a lot, but I'll still admit that she can seem hard and sometimes comes off with an ego. She probably has made a few self serving choices in her life. Still a good gal. I LOVE Al Gore, but you have to admit that man came off with an ego during some of the 2000 debates (though he deserves to have an ego the size of Jupiter) and no he isn't perfect either. John Edwards? No, he's not perfect and has made some bad choices by voting for the war. But he did apologize, and I do not think those choices were purely self serving. I think that he is a good person, when all is said and done, and it is rare to find a politician who is honestly a good person, who has a dream instead of an egocentric goal. I really think that Mr. Edwards feels the deepest, most unquenchable burn for his platform. I do not believe that he uses poverty as lip-service. Of all the candidates running I am shocked to see that John is the one you have chosen to attack.

I know my post has added no facts to this debate and is merely my rambling opinion, but I just really felt compelled to share it.

[Mythsaje]

31. Frenchie hates Edwards

more than any other candidate because Edwards was a disappointment. Thus, Frenchie spends all the time available bashing him rather than actively working to help another candidate. I'm sure Frenchie's reasons are valid, on a personal level, but often what is taken for absolute certainty by someone bearing a grudge is little more than dark matter impeding the vision.

[FrenchieCat]

34. You've had your say about me and what I think and what I feel and what I do.....

and I only hope it helps you in your life.

Far as I am concerned, Presidential Candidates are not out of bounds on DU....although I was made to understand that DUers are.

If aiming your ire at me makes you feel all the betta', than I'm at least glad that I could be of some assistance in you coping with whatever ails you.

[Mythsaje]

39. You certainly hate Edwards...

And hate, as we know, isn't the opposite of love. It's more like love turned sideways. I see a LOT of anti-Edwards posts from you, but pretty much nothing else of note. Therefore, it's easy to come to the conclusion that you're a bit obsessive on the subject. It's more than a bit pitiable, really. I can't imagine having that much faith in someone in the first place that losing it would make me bitter and hateful toward them from that point forward.

See, none of this is personal for me. I chose my candidate based on stated positions on the issues, not "gut" feeling or an assumption of knowledge I do not possess. If they ignore the issues I care most about, I don't support them. If they bring them before the people and say "something needs to be done," they've got my vote.

It's really as simple as that.

:shrug:

And nothing "ails" me that a good shakeup of the government wouldn't cure--you know, something none of the other candidates seem even interested in mentioning, much less doing anything about. Nor does your obsession have any impact in my life whatsoever. I find it amusing that you would suggest it would. Or could.

Please, don't let me interrupt your obsession. I'm sure there's a pro-(or anti-) Edwards thread right now that needs your particular point of view.

[madfloridian]

43. She hated Dean in 04, now Edwards. Do you know why?

Clark was supposed to be the VP in 04, not Edwards. Nuff said.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Please put your knitting needles away.......

and come into the year 2008......where there are those of you use
the word hate much too easily, just cause you can.

Look at the future, and not the past. :headbang:

[Onlooker]

33. Obama and Clinton deserve a lot of credit

John Edwards is wrong on this one.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Debates%3a+Who%27s+in%2c+who%27s+out%2c+who%27s+mad&articleId=d54d1b4f-91bd-4342-aad7-3d11d99b4a05

Obama said: "The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates’ views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that’s why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week’s debate.”

Clinton said: "I believe in the true spirit of the New Hampshire process, the candidates who have participated in past debates should not be excluded from this one."

In contrast, John Edwards told UnionLeader.com this afternoon, "I'm staying out of that. I don't get to set the rules for the debates. I'll let the people who are in charge of the debates set the rules. And I'll be there."

[FrenchieCat]

35. word.

[question everything]

36. I agree, however if #1 is a second or third tier

while #2 is one of the top 3... then this puts the whole thing in a different perspective, right?

I don't know who is who - have not read the other posts - but if #1 is Clinton, Obama or Edwards, then this is great.

[FrenchieCat]

37. #1 is Obama and

#2 is Edwards, the fighting revolutionary crusader for the people. :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

40. And I say again ..... Gobama!

[madfloridian]

42. Shades of 04....same folks, different target. Edwards this time.

Truly amazing, Frenchie. And with all the recommends just like in 04.

It was piling on Dean last time, this time it is Edwards.

Same song, second verse.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Still in love with Howard Dean, are you?

That's not my fault. :shrug:

Well Johnny's cute too.

[madfloridian]

44. Here's how it works.

Frenchie posts an Edwards attack. But I imagine the recommends are all lined up so it moves quickly to the greatest page.

That is how it worked in 03 and 04.

Only there was another target.

I survived, some did not.

[mojowork_n]

45. Is there a name for that?

Pack Blogging? Gang Posting? Boiler Room Leveraging?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_journalism

I'm glad you survived to tell the tale.

[FrenchieCat]

48. It's called "Madfloridian still looking for her marbles" or aka "a conspiracy of 10 recs".....

Madfloridian has always complained of being persecuted here at DU....and felt that there were conspiracies to get her, as well as Howard Dean, and I guess now, John Edwards.

I have been honest enough to post why I don't want Edwards for my President in a post above. But I guess that somehow I have to love him to be "normal"....or I have to "hate" him to satisfy some of his fans (I neither love nor hate him--Just would prefer four others winning before him).

But I guess it is logical that as many smears as are written about Hillary and Obama every fucking single day here at DU...I'm the one with a "conspiracy secret plot" who has 10 DUers to do "recs". Sad that one would not want to think that there are simply at least 10 DUers who support Obama enough to feel that my word by word comparison of Obama vs. Edwards words would have some merit in their eyes. Too bad that in Madfloridian's world there are not at the least 10 Obama supporters on these boards....and instead, some plotting must be going on.

If I was as paranoid as Mad, I'd be supporting the Ghoul, who attract those who are terrified that something or someone is "plotting" to get them any minute now.

guess I should be lynched......for not loving me some John Edwards! :eyes: