Newsweek on Edwards: "The Wrath of John"

[MethuenProgressive]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/70997

His voice rising, he said it is a "lie" that any Democrat will be a better leader than any Republican. "It does not work to replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats!" At the Las Vegas debate last Thursday, Edwards went after Clinton the moment he got the mike. "I am surprised at just how angry John has become," Sen. Chris Dodd said in a statement last week. "This is not the same John Edwards I once knew."

No comment from me on this, I think Newsweek has it covered well enough.

[kurth]

1. Yep, they also called Howard Dean an angry man

'Iowa yell' stirring doubts about Dean
Battle cry to troops strikes some critics as over the top
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/21/MNG4F4E5N51.DTL

[MethuenProgressive]

45. Dean wasn't angry. He was enthusiastic. I doubt Dean polled enthusiasm as his planned "new tone".

That's how I saw it, YMMV.

[ClassWarrior]

52. Yes, and that's how the trustworthy Corporate Media played it... President Dean...

...was an "enthusiastic" candidate.

:rofl:

NGU.

[Beaverhausen]

56. that's right! The media never called Dean "angry"

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/13/dean_media/index_np.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-16-dems-cover-usat_x.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311260933.asp


:eyes:

[Hieronymus]

64. Yes, and what a mistake that was. Like Dean, Edwards is passionate ..

Thank God. He's telling it like it is.:applause:

[OzarkDem]

88. It won't work this time

the news media isn't going to choose the Dem candidate this time around. The trick may have worked with Dean, its less likely to work now.

[polichick]

2. Calling someone angry is just a way to demonize and marginalize...

Some folks must be threatened by what Edwards is saying ~ just as they were threatened by what Dean said.

[1932]

3. Poll result: "I like John because of his positive message." Spin: "Edwards is angry."

[cali]

6. you're kidding- or you should be.

Edwards is running third in Iowa, a state he's spent multiple times more time in than either of his chief rivals. He's been campaigning there for over 3 freakin' years. he should be in first place in the polls.

In New Hampshire he's tied with Richardson and polling 13%. In South Carolina he's in the single digits. Why are you under the illusion that poll results reflect "I like John...."?

[1932]

38. Why are you so angry?

And why don't you understand my point?

[ClassWarrior]

49. ROFL

NGU.

[cali]

54. i don't like spin from anyone or any side and

you were spinning. Nor was my tone particularly angry.

[1932]

63. Why don't you think that I'm telling the truth?

I think what I said above is very possibly the truth.

And how can you be so sure that a lot of stuff you thinks is the truth is just you being unwittingly suckered-in to interpret spin as truth?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. When you look at everything in the US...

I would say anger is an appropriate response. This blissful, flat-affect thing that some Americans have about things is scary.

[Armstead]

5. People are angry -- Why not candidates?

Yes, as soon as a candidates dares to aim his fire at the status quo, he is tagged as "angry."

It's comparable to Howard Dean, who is basically a cheerful, optimistic soul but who was tagged as "angry" because he actually reflected the anger of many people over the War in Iraq.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. The article talks about his fear of a backlash:

"Even so, Edwards is mindful of a backlash against his attacks. NEWSWEEK has learned that his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing. (Aides say their numbers show it hasn't hurt him.) Bob Shrum, who managed the John Kerry–Edwards campaign in 2004, says Edwards's efforts could backfire."

That is what happened with me. I have always liked Edwards and his wife. I had issues with his "conversion" and senate votes, but all-in-all I lked him. When he started the distortions and negative spinning-he lost me.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. "his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing"

No comment.

[Ninga]

15. Catch 22, damned if you do consider polls, and damned if you don't listen to what the voters say.

and please........no comment is a comment.

[Tellurian]

26. If they dared say they didn't like his tone...they'd get axed in a heartbeat!

Portraying himself as "Honest John" is a reach for someone with a shameful Senate record. Or that somehow he is honest and Hillary is not. I hope someone publishes his Senate record and point by point demonstrates the antithesis of his Senate record to the sudden pangs of a guilty conscience producing an epiphany of campaign promises.

"Actions speak louder then words, Honest John!"

Health Care Plan...He voted against health care when it came to a Senate vote.

Bankruptcy....He tightened up the language in the Bankruptcy reform Bill with no relief for people with astronomical medical bills.

Iraq War Resolution.. Not only Co-Sponsored the Bill, but promoted anyone not supporting it as UN patriotic.

Hedge Funds..Edwards worked for and knew about the looming mortgage collapse long before it happened. Where do you think the 'paper' for mortgage financing was sold. (portfolio investors)Hedge Funds.

You can't run away John, from your record of shameful achievements for the people you hope to lead.

[Armstead]

11. What distortions and negative spinning?

Honest question.

(I'm on the fence about him. Sometimes have doubts about him, but I do believe he is saying what needs to be said.)

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. Here are some of my concerns:

1. Driver's license for illegal immigrants (he said the same thing later on ABC with Stephonloglouvosuese),
2. her ideas about Iraq (they have nearly the same positions, yet Edwards attempts to distort Clinton's),
3. health care (Clinton has been a champion for health care since the 90's, yet Edwards attempts to distort it),
4. NAFTA and other free trade (he was all for the agreements and yet is criticizing Clinton for her similar votes)
5. Edwards made millions on off-shore hedge funds that are not very different from the type of money that Clinton received from corporate donors.
6. He attempted to call her a republican who is no different than the neo-cons--that was the one that got me. He is using the left's fear of Bush et al and attempt to paint her as one of them. Her record clearly does not support that lie, but he continues to say it, and his supporters repeat it as if fact.

Those are a few of the issues that concern me about Edwards' distortions.

[Armstead]

32. To me the big question is whether he has changed or not

Up to, and through, the 2004 election, Edwards was basically a centrist who tried to push the same basic agenda thinly wrapped in populist rhetoric.

Since then, he has changed his tune in a very basic way. For me the big question is whether he has gone through an Al-Gore style conversion (or a letting out of his true self) or whether his current message and stances are just the old Edwards wrapped up in slightly more populist rhetoric.

I honestly don't know.

As for those concerns you mentioned:

As for his attempts to call her a neo-con and Republican....Well, honestly I think she is a neo-con. A Democratic version of a neo-con, but a neo-con nevertheless. While you may have a point about his calling her a Republican-- well, she has done the same thing to Edwards with claims of his "mudslinging right out of the GOP playbook."

The driver's license issue was much ado about nothing, except for the fact that Hillary did get caught trying to have it both ways. That's important on a larger level, because it reflects one of the major problems with her.

The money made in hedge funds, I'd put in the same category of his former record. Did he actually learn from that and change, or did he just get caught? I dunno.

As for their positions on what to do about Iraq. To be honest, the only one whose position I really understand is Kucinich. The rest seem to offer up shifting versions of teh same-old, same-old that has market the "debate" over Iraq policy for years.....However, Edwards at least admits that hje made a mistake on that, and he seems to be more in favor of a clearer and more tangible withdrawal than Hillary.

[creeksneakers2]

35. Edwards said Hillary screened her audiences and questions

That was a total lie.

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. that's right--another distortion

His behavior really changed mind about him.

[Syrinx]

58. why would anyone care what Bob Shrum has to say at all? n/t

[Lucinda]

61. Me too.

[OzarkDem]

89. Glad he's not listening to Shrum

Shrum has such a winning record...:sarcasm:

[donsu]

8. something is wrong with you if you are not angry about corporations

feeding politicians.

Go John!

[monmouth]

10. When a candidate has to change their "tone" there is something ingenuous

about it. He's being an actor of sorts..i.e. let's try this emotion, etc. Sorry, neither he or his wife does a thing for me except promote themselves as "players." Rich white lawyer with a lot of time and money on his hands sooo, "let's try the presidential thing." Very unimpressive, the new "tone" is not working...

[MethuenProgressive]

43. When candidates have to do polling to find a new tone there is a LOT ingenuous

The new Edwards seems entirely poll created.

[adnelson60087]

60. Oh, that cannot stand...

What about Hillary at the Black Churches and all that crap she was spewing. As a black democrat, I was mortified and offended by her statements and mannerisms. I would trust Edwards' on any range of issues before I listened to her about Iraq, and how taking the money of the Healthcare Lobbyists "would not influence her". Did she really expect us to believe that crap?? Jesus, she must think we're dumb as dirt.

[itsrobert]

12. True! We shouldn't replace "corporate republicans with corportate democrats"

John is right again. It's too bad supporters of corporate democrats (Hillary) can't handle the truth.

[cali]

14. there are plenty of us who don't support Clinton

who look at his record and see someone who did plenty of catering to corporations, and who doesn't live the change he advocates for.

[monmouth]

16. Well stated...n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Yes, but almost no one would say that he wasn't "a better leader" than the guy who replaced him.

See, that is the point where the rhetoric starts to hit overkill. It gets dangerously close to Nader's 2000 position.

[Armstead]

36. Don't take this as an endorsement of Nader but....

....in terms of the issues, Nader was absolutely correct.

I wish he'd thrown his support to Gore in the end in 2000, and I wish he'd kept out of it in 2004. However, if you seperate the message from the messenger, Nader was saying what needed to be said -- and still needs to be said.

The Democratic Party -- and the country -- would be a lot better off today if its' message and platform were a lot closer to Nader rather than Al Fromm.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. I often wish we had a Parlimentary system, or instant run offs

The closest we realistically get at the Federal and State levels are Primaries, with very few viable third Party exceptions to the rule. I agreed with Nader's platform. A case can be made that there were more fundemental differences between Gore and Nader in 2000 than between Gore and Bush, but Nader jumpted the tracks when he strongly implied if not out right said that there would be little difference between electing Bush or Gore President, and I lost a lot of respect for him when he allowed himself to become an enabler of a Republican victory, and then washed his hands of those results and ran against Kerry in 2004.

[XemaSab]

51. word.

n/t

[OzarkDem]

90. Got an example?

[Beaverhausen]

17. I'm angry too.

You know the old saying, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention.

Apparantly some here aren't.

[MethuenProgressive]

20. "his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing"

Most of us wouldn't need to poll before we proceeded with a new 'tone,' Beaverhausen.

[Beaverhausen]

25. "Aides say their numbers show it hasn't hurt him."

from the article-


But asking if Edwards is, in fact, newly angry turns out to be the quickest way to make his staff angry. "This is who he has always been," says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. "He's always been fighting against special interests and standing up for the little guy." At the same time, Prince says the tone of this campaign is different, something he attributes to the candidate's experiences running in 2004 and to his wife Elizabeth's battle with cancer. "He's more passionate, more intense," he says, "but he's not different."

Even so, Edwards is mindful of a backlash against his attacks. NEWSWEEK has learned that his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing. (Aides say their numbers show it hasn't hurt him.)

[William769]

19. John come out fighting and got knocked on his ass.

He coward like a little boy. But once again after he is out of the reach of Hillary, he's running his mouth again. Whats the matter Johnny boy? Afraid of that girls punch? :rofl:

[cali]

22. yeah that comment adds so much

to the discussion and tone here. thanks.

:sarcasm:

[William769]

23. Just thought I would add to the bullshit that gets posted on DU lately.

[asdjrocky]

29. You, among all of us here, should know.

[William769]

31. You are correct, I should know of the bullshit that gets posted by Hillary haters.

[asdjrocky]

37. Not by me my friend.

I've posted a couple of factual articles. That's it. I don't call names, and I never stoop to the level of your post. But that's what's great about America, you do what you do, and I'll do what I do.

Good luck to your candidate.

[mtnsnake]

21. I think Edwards will end up running as John McCain's running mate

if McCain gets the nod, considering how the two of them are peas in a pod...both conservative and both as phony as a 4 dollar bill.

[MethuenProgressive]

24. A 3 or 4 party race isn't beyond reason, but I don't see Edwards/McCain happening

If the Democratic and Republican candidates aren't right or left enough, a far left and far right party might field a candidate. If the GOP splits, we win. If we split, we lose. If we both split - it's Katie-bar-the-door.

[mtnsnake]

28. True. McCain would probably court a real Progressive to run with him to balance out his ticket

as opposed to a faux Progressive like Edwads.

[PresidentObama]

40. Of course it won't happen, Mtnsnake just said it to stir shit....as usual....

McCain would neither court Edwards, nor would Edwards give him the time of day.

[asdjrocky]

30. Sanke, of all the things you've said,

this my friend is the most funny.

[asdjrocky]

27. What a joke.

MSM is doing a great job on you if you believe this crap.

Good luck to your candidate.

[MethuenProgressive]

44. asdr, please tell us what part of the Newsweek story about Edwards is a "joke"

The Edwards campaign obviously cooperated with the magazine.
What parts do you think were made up by Newsweek and are not true?


edit: removed a stray s

[creeksneakers2]

33. This is the reputation Edwards earned

The media always talks about Edwards' mudslinging when they talk about him at all. Rival candidates talk about Edwards the mudslinger too. Other messages Edwards tries to launch won't fly, because he's defined as a mudslinger now, and a press that loves to hear Hillary bashing will be interested in nothing else. Edwards can't win.

The media likes the Edwards the phony angle too.

Edwards earned his reputation by being a phony and a mudslinger.

[asdjrocky]

34. Well, I guess that's why we have elections.

Good luck to your candidate.

[Ninga]

42. I agree, and there is just about 5 to 6 weeks before the first caucus/elections take place.

The primary campaign season is filled with shifting dynamics and all of the candidates must be able to adjust and respond accordingly.

No candidate is exempt from the process.

[asdjrocky]

55. Very good point.

[PresidentObama]

41. Isn't this angry bullshit what they tried with Dean? Don't mistake anger with passion.

And besides, I'm fucking angry too. This country is fucked up, and we need a real leader to fix this mess Bush has caused.

[MethuenProgressive]

47. "we need a real leader to fix this mess Bush has caused."

"we need a real leader to fix this mess Bush has caused."
(emphasis mine)
I agree. That's why Edwards is near the bottom of my list.

[PresidentObama]

50. Ok, good for you. Personal opinion.

[Hawkowl]

46. Edwards has 2 chances

If he can win either Iowa or NH, the media will have to spin it as "America is angry". Anger and attacking (by dems anyway) may no longer be painted as out of touch with what voters truly are feeling. In other words, the truth might leak out, i.e; the voters ARE very angry.

However, Edwards may do better to focus more of his outrage against rethuglicans, tone down his attacks on HRC, (the media and corporate darling), and simply portray her as out of touch. Maybe go with she is just another 20th century politician with solutions that will not work now. I think if Edwards does capture the nomination he will do very well in the GE, because then he will be attacking a rethuglican and THAT would reflect the mood of the nation.

Also, remember that during 2004, Edwards was painted as not attacking enough as VP nominee. The traditional role of the VP nominee is that of attack dog, and he didn't really attack in 2004. So I believe today's Edward is more of an Al Gore conversion, than simply an "act". Everyone has to remember that he has already lost a teenage son AND now his wife is dying. I have absolutely no doubt he is truly a very angry man hoping to put his anger to good use.

[XemaSab]

53. Edwards came in second in Iowa in 2004 because voters liked his positive message.

Changing his tone will alienate his original supporters, and may not win him new ones.

[Triana]

57. Oh my. Edwards is "angry"?! Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Pfffffffffffffffffft!

SO? As are the rest of us. ANGER is a normal human emotion. What Newsweek does NOT cover is whether such anger is justified. They just paint it as being "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad". What a crock of bu$hit.

"Oh nooo! He's ANGRY!" *GASP!*

Here's a good read about being "too angry".

http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pagetooangryforwhat.html

Too angry for WHAT?


Oh. WHO owns Newsweek again?

[MethuenProgressive]

69. "ANGER is a normal human emotion." But Edwards had to do polling to see how 'angry tone' would play.

Newsweek:"his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing"
You:"ANGER is a normal human emotion."
Exactly. We humans don't need to do polling before we get angry.

[ChiciB1]

92. So Newsweek Says!! Even So, I'm Sure There's PLENTY Polling Going

on internally in EVERY campaign. Some of it just doesn't get blasted all over because some campaigns have "ways" of shutting people up!

If any of us were a fly on the wall in any campaign headquarters, I'm sure there would be quite a few things that would not set well with us. HEY DUDE, it's politics! Seems like you get angry quite bit yourself!

[DaLittle Kitty]

74. Since when is stating the facts about your opponent throwing mud?

The mere exercise of stating factual information in a public forum is just one very polite method of distinguishing one candidate from another. Its just if the facts mentioned by your opponent are less than flattering to your cause yer dander is likely to get upped a tad. ;)

[weeve]

59. Didn't Newsweek just hire Karl Rove ?

Enough said.

Go John Go !! Keep speaking Truth to Power, and just ignore what these Corporate Media types say. You're obviously a threat to their power, so they'll smear you ( ala Dean ) any way they can.

[Hieronymus]

65. You got that right .. Rove and Newsweek can go to hell.

[MethuenProgressive]

68. They hired kos the very same day as balance. So that makes your "outrage"... what?

Karl Rove and Markos Moulitsas' Newsweek Columns Debut - Media on ...Karl Rove and Markos Moulitsas' Newsweek Columns Debut - The Huffington Post.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/17/karl-rove-and-markos-moul_n_73138.html - 213k -

[Hieronymus]

70. I didn't realize how fond of Rove you were.

[MethuenProgressive]

71. It figures an Edwards logo comes with that slur.

Did you poll before you posted your anger?
:rofl:

[MethuenProgressive]

67. Karl "How to Beat Hillary (Next) November" Rove?

"How to Beat Hillary (Next) November" Newsweek opinion by Karl Rove.
Kinda blows the "Newsweek is a Clinton tool" meme all to pieces.

[Amanita]

62. ANY democrat is better than ANY Republican. Although where this leaves

Edwards is unclear to me.

[MethuenProgressive]

66. Exactly, Amanita. Exactly.

I'll vote for our nominee - and I hope all Democrats will do the same.

[JTFrog]

72. Mighty big of you (read "safe") not to comment....your third or fourth time posting it. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

73. Thanks for the kick!

:kick:

[JTFrog]

75. No problem. Like I said, playing it a lot safer than those first two attempts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3733640
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3735314

I'd kick those two, but it looks like they are already locked up. :shrug:

So here's another kick to help keep things in the light.

*edit - fix link

[MethuenProgressive]

76. Actually JT, the first two were fine. Until the usuals flamed them, and then reported the flames.

It's DU 101. If you really don't want free discussion, you email your buds, get them to turn an honest thread into a flame fest, and hit the alert button complaining the thread was flame bait.
I do not blame our mods at all on this, they can't read everything, and have to make tons of calls every day. Thanks for posting the links!
:kick:

[JTFrog]

77. Right.

The fact that you keep posting it proves there is no intent of flame bait. :sarcasm:

If you feel so compelled to have free discussion, then why was it again you chose not to comment?

Pathetic and desperate.

[MethuenProgressive]

78. I'm "Pathetic and desperate"? Please don't try to turn this thread into a flame war.

:kick:

[JTFrog]

79. No sir.

I did not say you were pathetic and desperate. I don't know you.

But this tactic. Pathetic and desperate.

[MethuenProgressive]

81. Have a great day!

Please know I think your tactics here are neither pathetic nor desperate.
Weasel wordy, maybe. Lawyer-ish, perhaps. Even Edwardian in way.

[MissDeeds]

80. Hell yes he's angry

I'm angry, too. If you aren't, you haven't been paying attention.

[MethuenProgressive]

83. Miss, perhaps John Edwards hasn't been paying attention?

Because he had to do polling* to see how his new 'angry' image would play with the public.

*from Newsweek story in OP.

[MissDeeds]

84. Keep trying to sell this crap

if you must. It isn't working.

[MethuenProgressive]

85. "his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing. "

But asking if Edwards is, in fact, newly angry turns out to be the quickest way to make his staff angry. "This is who he has always been," says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. "He's always been fighting against special interests and standing up for the little guy." At the same time, Prince says the tone of this campaign is different, something he attributes to the candidate's experiences running in 2004 and to his wife Elizabeth's battle with cancer. "He's more passionate, more intense," he says, "but he's not different."

Even so, Edwards is mindful of a backlash against his attacks. NEWSWEEK has learned that his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing. (Aides say their numbers show it hasn't hurt him.)

Newsweek slams Clinton, and it's the Voice of God!
Newsweek quotes Edwards staffers, and now it's "crap"...

[depakid]

82. Newsweek- what a joke

Might as well read the Washington Post- or Fox, because that's what sort of rag Newsweek's become. And that's bout as much credence as I give their "analysis."

[QC]

86. Anybody who's not angry right now is a fool.

And anyone who spends all of his or her time attacking Democrats on DU might as well be a Republican.

[MethuenProgressive]

87. Only a "fool" would need to do polling about how angry they should appear.

jmo, ymmv
:kick:

[ChiciB1]

91. THIS Takes The Cake... Here At DU We Scream Because The Democrats

have no spine.... but WHEN one of our candidates actually puts it out there he gets attacked for being "too angry!" Checked out how the Repukes are fighting these days??

Aren't YOU angry with what's been done to America?? Aren't YOU angry with all the corruption, lies and manipulation we've seen? Don't YOU wish other Democrats would show some righteous indignation??

Personally, I'm beyond ANGRY... I'm PISSED!! Can't stand all the suck-ups and I'm ready for The Revolution!!!

You Go, Johnny, Go!!!