Why Do Voters Seem Not to Trust Edwards?

[Mike03]

I'm torn between Edwards and Obama, but slightly favoring Edwards because he is so squared away on Universal Health Care, and because his attention seems more tightly focused on domestic issues, particularly the struggle of the working class.

If, as so many polls claim, the number one issue in the minds of voters is the economy (i.e., inflation, jobs, cost of insurance), why is his message not resonating more with voters? More than HRC and Obama, his emphasis is so squarely on the issues that voters claim concern them, that I am bewildered by his lack of traction.

It must be a lack of trust, based most likely on the fact he is a lawyer--which is a spurious and specious reason to reject him. And I know the hedge fund issue bothers many people, but I'm doubtful most voters even know what this issue concerns or what a hedge fund is.

I'm just curious, and deeply puzzled.

[maddiejoan]

1. For me it's the disparity

I just can't bridge the gap from his Senate career to now.

It's too much of a 180 degree turn for me to trust.

[Bicoastal]

10. Agreed...

...but it goes deeper than that.

I ask my mom, who's torn between Obama and Clinton--she said "I just don't trust Edwards." Why? "I don't know--I just don't."

Then, as I'm walking home from work the other day, I overhear a bunch of college students talking smack about Edwards, about his wife's cancer, about his career as a trial lawyer, about his relationship with Kerry. It was clear that they were left-leaning, since they spoke positively about Clinton and Obama--but equally clear that they would not jump aboard the Edwards bandwagon.

I don't get it...

[OneGrassRoot]

12. Any idea what kind of smack they were talking with regard to Elizabeth's cancer? n/t

[Bicoastal]

I don't think you'll like it...

...but they were laughing about the nerve of this guy to drag his poor wife, who will soon die of cancer, all around the country on behalf of his Presidential campaign. "Wouldn't you rather spend your last remaining years travelling, or lying on a beach somewhere?"

Ugh.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. Thanks for the reply. n/t

[Inspired]

30. Those are remarks of very naive young people.

I hope you set them straight.

[Bicoastal]

35. Nah...4 or 5 kids just a few years younger than I, walking together on the streets of NYC...

...it would have been akward to confront them then and there.

But I agree with the other poster--his rhetoric is completely different now that he's not in office any more, and that's not good enough for me.

[Inspired]

54. Yeah, like all terminally ill people want to go the beach

and travel.

They only wish.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. I know my perspective changed when I got Cancer...

He started the process when his son died, and his wife's illness I'm sure gave him a new perspective. I understand that completely.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

17. I might disagree with you on the majority of posts i've seen by you

But on this matter i actually agree with you, his senate record compared to his current rhetoric is like an inverted image(not fully but a large part)

[slick8790]

43. I dunno if the average voter is really t hat informed about his time in the senate.

You're giving them a bit too much credit, I think. While I disagree with you on trusting him, I can at least respect your reasons for doing so. I think the RW media has convinced the average voter that "trial lawyer = bad, evil, horrible person", and "John edwards is TRIAL LAWYER!!". Might also have something to do with lack of familiarity. Who knows.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Because that's the message M$M is pushing on Edwards.

He's a phony. He pays too much for his haircuts. He has a big house. He talks about the poor but he doesn't live in a hovel. How Dare He!!!11!

[Vincardog]

36. Bingo got it in one. The Corporate Controlled Media refuses to allow Edwards his voice

[MichiganVote]

3. Because although his message is timely, I feel like a juror in a lawsuit when he speaks

[OneGrassRoot]

9. lol...and if the defendant was deserving of being imprisoned...

wouldn't you want to be on the jury delivering the guilty verdict?

I get it when people call him a used car salesman, etc., but I didn't understand your comment.

:)

[DangerDave921]

20. explain

To feel like a juror means to feel like the attorney is telling you a story, with a decided slant to it. Good trial attorneys must appear caring and honest, even when they're not. And they try to put the best spin possible on often negative facts. So you can't really believe what a trial attorney is telling you during closing argument. It's a sales pitch. That level of distrust follows Edwards around.

[OneGrassRoot]

23. Thanks for the explanation. :) n/t

[MichiganVote]

22. Maybe. What I mean is that his delivery seems to sound to me like

a lawyer's summary in a lawsuit. Granted the news tends to do the soundbites that way and that's too bad. But since he didn't campaign in the now so called evil state of Michigan I have no opportunity to see him in person.

Anyway, he needs to cite a few more facts to go along with his arguments re: corporations

I'd suggest that he vary his tone more and make it feel more personal to voters

And he really needs to vary his remarks to something other than corporate power. I understand the point of view and the basis of his campaign...its just not going to sell to enough of the voters in this country. Sort of put a lot of his eggs in that corporate basket.

And now...let the mudslinging begin...

[OneGrassRoot]

26. LOL ...

Well, I don't agree that it's a message that won't resonate if he's given a chance to be heard fully. I believe it is indeed very personal when we're all affected in one way or another by corporate influence in Washington, let alone instances of corporate greed where the CEOs get millions of dollars in bonuses yet tens of thousands of people are laid off.

Otherwise, there are simply going to be people who don't like him. Period. Just as there are people who, aside from issues and platforms, aren't going to like other candidates.

And we can certainly agree to disagree. :hi:

No mudslinging from me! LOL

[MichiganVote]

39. Wow. A civilized discussion on DU. Who knew? Have a good one.

[NastyRiffraff]

48. You ARE a juror in a lawsuit

We all are. John Edwards didn't do the crimes of Bush/Cheney. He's defending against them.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. There's another thread here somewhere...

with a poll where people were asked who they need more information on in order to make a decision. Edwards received far and away the most votes. People don't know enough about him. If they don't watch the debates or go online, they're not going to hear his message.

Whether or not they would resonate is another question (though I, like you, believe it would resonate with most people), but the reality is that because MSM hasn't given him the same exposure (all the "discussions" have been about Hillary and Barak...many times Edwards isn't even mentioned as being a candidate), people don't know enough about him to say they support him.

[Truth2Tell]

5. The "voters" you are referring to must be watching too much of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yp-MeXSysE&eurl=http://foxattacks.com/blog/22158-fox-attacks-edwards-and-obama

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. cause he's a pretty, and he's a Lawyer.

and they are un-informed or mis-informed.

[KittyWampus]

7. #1. His actual record vs. his policy plans/rhetoric. #2. his packaging/framing of message SUCKS

[whatdoyouthink]

8. I don't think its a trust Issue

More so MSN and MONEY Issue and will Give Hillary AND Obama a Plug - there running a good campaign - be it whatever you call it - but there ahead and were behind (hope not for long)

Go Johny

[redqueen]

13. "It must be a lack of trust, "

I don't assume that.

[mnhtnbb]

29. where do you get that assumption?

Most voters, unless they're all over the internet, aren't getting Edwards' message because the MSM is determined not to report on him favorably.

[redqueen]

33. It's not my assumption, I was quoting the OP, and saying that I didn't assume

that that "must" be the reason.

As for what I think, I agree with you. :)

[GreenTea]

14. Because the corporate media constantly trashes Edwards - Don't let the MSM make up your mind for....

http://www.johnedwards.com / :bounce:

you. John Edwards must be supported! WHY?

The mainstream corporate media (MSM) is simply ignoring Edwards, trashing him if they mention him at all....They want it to be a two-way race with the two moderate easier to beat democrats, and even if either Hillary or Obama won the general election, neither would pose much or no threat to the corporations greed, privatization plans and monopolies what-so ever!

Progressive candidate John Edwards has publicly opposed these same insatiable corporations and is a real & true threat to the five republican owned MSM corporations (Disney, Murdoch, Time-Warner, Viacom & General Electric) the corporations know Edwards would regulate try and break up the lock they now have on the republican owned media.

Again, Hillary and Obama pose no such threat to the corporations that run our country....they are moderates and will go along with status quo as ALL moderates do. Of course the corporations want to get a republican elected....But, if a republican doesn't somehow get elected the next best thing is a moderate Democrat for the republicans - just as Hillary and Obama profess to be, and indeed are.... moderates!

The republicans and their corporations certainly don't want an FDR type liberal progressive such as John Edwards elected.

From the wise Paul Krugman; January 14, 2008: "John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures."

http://www.johnedwards.com /:bounce:



http://www.johnedwards.com /:bounce:

[skipos]

15. It isn't trust. He focused all of his energy on Iowa, thinking 2008 would be like 2004

and his strategy didn't work out very well. In 2004, the only state he won while campaigning was S Carolina with 45% of the vote. He will be lucky to get half of that this time around. He may come in 2nd in a state or two, but I highly doubt he will win any of them.

I am not torn between Obama and Edwards, I like them both. I do not like Hillary, and I see Obama as having the best chance of beating her right now.

[wundermaus]

16. It's not so much a question of trust...

It's more a function of M$M spin or the lack there of. The Corporatists loath him and so he is panned in a harsh and unfavorable manner. He is almost entirely marginalized by the talking heads and is systematically dismissed as a viable candidate - even when finishing second in Iowa. That alone should be a red flag to anyone considering him a target of the powers-that-be are keeping him at the fringe as much as possible. But we who have been watching this process from the beginning know the games the big boys play and it is a dirty little game of deception, diversion, and dismissal.

[Renew Deal]

19. Which one? Edwards of 2008 or Edwards of 2004 or Edwards of 2000?

Exactly!

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Because he is running against his own record.

His lack of traction comes from lack of trust.

He co-sponsored the IWR, but is running on an Anti-War Platform.

He voted for the bankrupcy bill, free trade with China, limiting liability for nuclear plans, but is running on a anti-big business platofrm.

He has accepted money from the exact same sources as everyone else, in very similar proportions, but is running as if he isn't.

[shenmue]

24. I do. I like him a lot.

To be honest, I think any of our candidates would make a good president. I think Edwards is really good.

[Mike03]

25. Some great responses here, which I appreciate.

Thank you.

On the matter of Kerry's undignified behavior towards Edwards, I think of that as a plus. It is Edwards' strength of character that Kerry seems to resent. It was allegedly Edwards who was not content to accept the '04 election results and was prepared to fight them. In my estimation, Kerry lost face on that one, and he blames Edwards.

Although I'm in the minority on this one, I thought Edwards was the superior debater: He KICKED Cheney's ass in that debate. I wish I had recorded it, because that was really, for me, the moment when I started to pay attention to Edwards.

[robbedvoter]

27. His record. All the "oops". The fact that he didn't say a word about the 2004 theft

The fact that last January was threatening Iran with a war.

Also, his supporters can't have it both ways: is MSM attacking him or is it ignoring him? I remember plenty of good press early in the campaign - better than the other candidates.

[redqueen]

32. He didn't say a word about the 2004 theft?

I had the impression he wanted to contest OH, but Kerry didn't...

[robbedvoter]

40. "impression he wanted" ain't a word. It's a rumor. 4 silent years followed it.

Getting a bit hard to sell that one by now....But clever attempt of inoculation.

[redqueen]

42. Nasty.

Not the first time, but I've learned my lesson. Won't be attempting that again.

[robbedvoter]

44. Am I wrong? Did I miss a speech? A campaign issue? Anything?

[whatdoyouthink]

28. Want to ADD

Edwards is no simpleton by any means (He gets it!) but talks more Plane- Were as Hillary AND Obama talk a Triangulation (Wash ton) talk- Did that work out for Kerry? (though i think he won)

But we did not win enough Independents or Repulsions (even though we out number them)to tip the scales enough! to leave no question

Look who is president now or recent past - except Bill - who was a good in Trianguation - but could do it and they? would understand it, even if they? did not like it - but we did.

Thats why Edwards Rates SO "high" - against any of them - and Obama and Hillary just don't

[ecstatic]

31. His record. His timing. His wealth nt

[Blue_In_AK]

34. Personally, I trust him far more than the two "front runners"

but that's just me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. Uh.... first of all, where did you pull that "trust" thing out of? nt

[childslibrarian]

38. It's the press and the Repubs

Edwards is the Repub's worse nightmare. (and they own the press)
They want Hillary or Obama. They can beat them. They can't beat Edwards, therefore they ignore him, dismiss him or report that people don't trust him.
Do you want the Democrats to win or not?

[PresidentObama]

41. Since when do people not trust Edwards?

You must be spending too much time on DU.

[calico1]

45. Because he's an ambulance chaser,

he is filthy rich so how can he have a clue about how middle and lower income people feel? Oh, and he is making his dying wife campaign for him.

NOT MY VIEWS!!!! Just the more common comments I hear from people who don't like him.

[FlyingSquirrel]

47. Slurs, slams, slime

and the beat goes on

[Triana]

46. M$M Blackout of Edwards is a HUGE part of it. (ignore him or slam him)

LOOK what they did to Kucinich. They're trying to do the same to Edwards. Either NO coverage or NEGATIVE coverage.

[The Backlash Cometh]

49. Here's where the dissonance exists, (I think)

People who own their own businesses and are connected into "the network" can't operate freely if they're not given a wide margin to break the rules. You'd be amazed how many civic community positions are available were someone can take advantage of the position for personal gain and there really is no law enforcement agency that will do a damn thing about it. You have to sue in order to get justice, but suing requires trusting a court system which might already be breached; So bigger the network and corruption, or the more entrenched the network is in the society, the more impossible it becomes to challenge.

In essence, they have the upper hand, right now because the average citizens doesn't really know the dimension of the problem. That's because the newspapers aren't reporting the stories which could reveal these inner workings in a community. And since nobody is getting educated on the matter, it continues to fester.

So it's a twofold obstacle. First, the bad guys are good at keeping their secrets; and second, the ignorant masses continue to remain ignorant on the matter.

It really is going to take a massive education effort to connect the dots for them. Believe me, what the bad lawyers of this country fear the most, is informing the masses of their wrong doing. At some level, those lawyers know they're doing wrong, and will straighten up once they have to explain themselves in a public forum. Their reputation is their livelihood. Gonzo, I would like to believe, is an anomaly. He has some serious cojones, but I have to believe he's a lot less happier a man today, than he was four years ago.

Anyway, take away a bad lawyer's freedom to hide behind confidentiality agreements and never allow him to find peace of mind through the statute of limitations, and this country's integrity will be restored, because devious CEOs will not find legal recourse for their bad decisions.

In sum, it takes a good lawyer, to neutralize a bad lawyer, and Edwards is a good lawyer.

[David Zephyr]

50. I support Obama. I think voters do trust & like Edwards. The media ignored him & it's criminal.

I chose Obama the beginning of this month. I do believe in my heart though (as many do) that John would have been the most electable candidate.

Now we see how the corporate media has excluded Dennis Kucinich, a U.S. Congresman who is on the ballot all over the U.S.

They might as well tell us they chose now so we can stop wasting our time.

[OzarkDem]

51. Got a link? Its not what the data shows

Edwards 57% favorable rating
http://www.pollingreport.com/E-F.htm


Edwards only problem right now is his lack of media coverage.

He has high favorability ratings from most voters, here in Ohio, his favorables are higher than Clinton or Obama.

Ohio Poll
http://www.ipr.uc.edu/PDF/OhioPoll/op051607.pdf

[OhioChick]

52. He Doesn't Get Enough Media Attention.... n/t

[robbedvoter]

53. Oh, and while DK is kicked out. let's not forget this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSoCHfyYCew

[jackson_dem]

55. They do. Look at his favorable ratings. They are comparable to Obama's