Elizabeth Edwards on whether hate is all you need (from JRE Blog):

[AP]

How Democrats win
Posted by Elizabeth Edwards
Thursday December 04, @11:43AM

In 1996, the Republicans so hated Bill Clinton that they thought if they just spit at him enough, the country would see what was so clear to them: Clinton was a failure in their eyes, just like in our eyes (and in reality) Bush has failed real Americans, failed to lead, and failed to insist on integrity in himself and in those around him. But in 1996, the Republicans did not offer anything substantial and certainly did not offer a positive vision because they were so sure that the negative attacks would take them to the White House. And the negative got a lot of attention. We read it night and day, it blanketed the airwaves. But then Americans, real Americans voted.

And what did we learn? We learned that the negative will not attract the vast numbers of people who actually decide elections. Clinton retained the White House in 1996. The most vicious attackers -- D'Amato, Faircloth, Barr -- have all lost in subsequent elections because they allowed the hallmarks of their offices to be hatred and anger. Oh, they got plenty of the attention you talked about, but that is not what America wants, and frankly it is not what America deserves.

We are electing the leader of our great country in a time of crisis, and we are electing the leader of the free world. It is important that our leaders are just that: capital "L" Leaders, taking us to a higher, better place.

It is easy to be enticed by the attention that setting oneself on fire will bring. A strong and principled leader will not do that. A strong and principled leader will bring people to a positive message. We constantly lament the downward spiral of our political campaigns, the negativity, and yet we continue to reach lower and lower. I want a candidate who reaches higher, and I am so proud that John is that kind of candidate. He is a candidate who really can bring the Real America -- turned off by attacks and yearning for solutions -- back into the political process. We will all be the stronger for that. And he can be the Leader our country needs at this divided time.

The reason I responded so strongly in Iowa when a supporter called him Our Best Hope is that it was so true -- poignantly, desperately, undeniably true. He is our best hope, precisely because he has the character and determination to reach higher and keeps his eyes on the promise that real solutions can bring.
 
Elizabeth Edwards: Custom Blog
Add Elizabeth Edwards As Your Friend

[chimpymustgo]

1. I love her. I love her husband too. Such classy people.

nt

[AP]

2. So, nobody disagrees?

Good.

[DjTj]

3. It's the truth...

...and I hope whoever wins the Democratic nomination will realize that while anger may win primary votes, it will not win the general election.

[Scott Lee]

4. In a perfect world, Elizabeth. However...

Cold water is poured over our heads and we waken to reality. Yes indeed, Clinton survived (rightfully) all the poison being thrown at him from the vicious right. But you only tell half the story.

Let's look at an increasing drumbeat of radio hate for the last twenty years. What does it draw? Lots of listeners and tons of advertiser cash. Rush has over 20 million listeners, and the rest of the hate radio gang; people like Savage, Hannity, Boortz etc. have shows that are very popular and awash in advertiser dough as well. Sad fact: In America, hate sells - at least on radio.

And let's not forget they gradual takeover of Congress by the extreme right. That same political inclination that made an art form out of vicious, slimey, negative attacks and character assassinations. For their efforts, the Congress is now majority Republican. This was happening even as Bill Clinton was being vindicated. The drum beat was increasing in pace and volume.

Then we got the Warchimp. Karl Rove's ugly little hate machine was grinding out the crap hard and fast. We remember Gore accused of everything from lying about Global Warming to faking his Vietnam stint. We can also remember that the remaining fallout of the Clinton debacle was being used againts him, almost as if he were Clinton himself. While piously poo-pooing negativity in the campaign, the Warchimp used it with relish and found his spoiled ass in the White House.

To this day, the Right is still tying our shoelaces together and having us run away. We are not allowed to rebel, fight back, be forceful in any way but they are allowed to carry on unimpeded with their hate march, that gets more shrill and arrogant with every seat they gain in Congress. Are we to continue to don our crown of thorns, smile and adjust that pink tutu as the Right continues to savage us and take more elections?

Not this Jose. I'm done being a victim. This is the dog eat dog world of politics, where they talk about Jesus but act like Satan to win. Democrats have to get their brass knuckles on not out of hate, but out of good old fashioned self defense. And we need to take it farther. Defend and then seize the issues again so we're not ever again stuck in a pit of defensiveness. Slam dunk every ugly attack on our ideologies, agendas and principles. Don't shy from a fight just because it's a fight.

That is not ugly, nor is it giving in to hate. It is a mandate of Nature.

[AP]

6. The media was just as vicious then as now. In some ways it's better now

because in the eyes of many, the news has lost their credibility, and because we have the internet to get the truth out (notice how you're reading Elizabeth Edwards's statement).

[Scott Lee]

10. Note this: The internet will help us, but will not save us.

I've been beating on this for years. And remember this is coming from someone who not only makes their living on the net, but uses it extensively for activist purposes.

The internet will not solve our problems. We have to concentrate on wresting at least half the control of the other media forms from the clutch of the neofascists. That includes TV, radio and print. People poopoo AM radio but the fact of the matter is that a hell of a lot of Americans still listen to it, and these people vote. They still read newspapers. They still watch opinion shows. How do we get heard regularly through these mediums? It's certainly not happening now.

Use the internet in tandem with the effort to take back all media.

[AP]

15. But you understand the point, right?

The media today vs in the 90s isnt' an argument for making hate more important.

Afterall, it was the media hatred in the 90s which Elizabeth E. is talking about. She's saying that didn't work.

[LeahMira]

14. That's not what she is saying, Scott.

Let's look at an increasing drumbeat of radio hate for the last twenty years. What does it draw? Lots of listeners and tons of advertiser cash. Rush has over 20 million listeners, and the rest of the hate radio gang; people like Savage, Hannity, Boortz etc. have shows that are very popular and awash in advertiser dough as well. Sad fact: In America, hate sells - at least on radio.

Yes, hate sells... to some. I think you have to realize that a certain percentage of the population runs on hate and resentment and all that stupid stuff, and that these people are always going to be around (because, I guess, evil is always going to be around). At the same time, these people are a very small percentage of the whole. Most folks will respond to a vision, a hope, a dream, and a little cockeyed optimism. They just need to see a choice and a chance.

You are right in saying that Democrats need to stop acting defensive. We need to be proactive, not reactive. We need to provide that vision and that choice. Just bashing Bush isn't going to do it, and bashing gives us no edge at all here. In fact, I'd ignore Bush and his evil crowd almost entirely and just hold up a plan and a picture of the world as we see it, with a possibility of peace and respect and caring for one another. That kind of plan and that kind of picture can be irresistable.

[AP]

17. The Dem's best argument isn't that Bush sucks. It's that Dems are better.

And that's what the campaign should be about.

There's nothing wrong with comparing and contrasting to Bush, but you better be putting something foreward more than "I hate Bush." Have to give them something to hold up to Bush.

See my sig line. That's comparing and contrasting in pictures. It applies that Bush is a stupid git. But It doesn't scream Bush is a stupid git. It gives you something better, puts it next to Bush, and lets you draw the conclusions.

[Pastiche423]

5. I disagree w/Elizabeth's

"And he can be the Leader our country needs at this divided time.'

Johnny boy had already divided one vast section of the population from the rest.

His ratings bare out what I said about him a year ago. Thank goodness.

[chimpymustgo]

7. "And he can be the leader our counry needs at this divided time."

I agree. Edwards or Clark. Edwards and Clark.

[Pastiche423]

8. You agree

that Johnny boy's ratings are where I expected them to be a year ago, in the single digits?

[AP]

9. IA: 7 evs; NH: 4; SC: 8

Edwards is leading in the largest of three early states.

Here are the states with early primaries (according to Edwards Blog -- correct me if this map is wrong.)



Those three states around NC are worth 32 evs. Including NC that's 47.

Those three in the SW/central west are worth 22.

NY and NH: 35 (is NY and early state?)

MI, WI, and IA: 34.

Clearly Edwards has stregth in important states, even if you write off NH and IA.

[Scott Lee]

11. That's false - Dean is way in the lead in NH

I think the Edwards blog needs to really scrutinize that map for accuracy.

[AP]

13. You're misreading the map (and my argument).

Re-read my post. If you don't understand, let me know.

[JI7]

12. elizabeth edwards gets it

just as her husband does. which is why john edwards was able to win in a conservative leaning state when the republicans were at one of their worst moments in hating clinton and trying to bring him down. remember, edwards got elected the year of the monica lewinsky ,impeachment crap.

[AP]

16. I read in an article that in 97 and 98

Edwards was trying to figure out how he could help the lives of more people than one client and case at a time.

He talked to some friends about what it was like to be in the NC state house. His friends said that if you're interested in making a difference, the NC state house is probably the last place you'd want to spend your days.

So he and his wife were trying to come up with a strategy. They started paying attention to what Faircloth was doing in the Senate and (in E.Edwards's precise words, if I remember correctly) they decided that "they had to take Faircloth down."

So, they were clearly motivated by the desire to take down someone who was doing serious damage to society, but they didn't spend the campaign telling you that they were running because they wanted to take Faircloth down. The ran the campaign telling you why they wanted to put Edwards up.

And it worked.