"I'm gonna give you the Democratic Party back; I'm gonna give you the White House back; and...

[polichick]

...I'm gonna give you America back."

This is how Edwards ended an Iowa town meeting that c-span covered this afternoon ~ saying that if people would caucus for him, that's what he'd do for them.

I've tried to explain to a few here why Edwards resonates better for me than Obama does at the moment, and this pretty much says it. After everything the Republicans (enabled by some Democrats) have taken from this country, I don't want to hear one word about uniting with them ~ I want to hear about taking it all back.

[SaveElmer]

1. What? Has he decided to vote for Hillary then?

:evilgrin:

[polichick]

2. Haha - fat chance!

But he didn't say anything unkind about her, even pointed out that she also has a mandate for universal healthcare coverage.

[SaveElmer]

3. The way it was worded...couldn't resist...

Hillary and Edwards do seem to be essentially on the same page as far as Health Care goes...

[Donnachaidh]

4. uh yeah -- and tell me again how much MONEY she's gotten from the HMO's and such?

Suuuuuuuurrre --- she's *said* she's on the same page. But all that green falling out of her back pockets says something entirely different. :eyes:

[saracat]

17. Yup.She would give us "back to the lobbyists"Remember she said they are "people too" ! Hah!

[sendero]

42. Yeah...

.. but he's head and shoulders over her on every damn thing else. Nice try.

[Beacool]

37. Good one!!!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JohnLocke]

39. Funny.

[Frances]

5. I haven't made up my mind yet

but I like Edwards' speech very much. I voted for him in the 2004 primary.

[Andy823]

6. I am with you

I too want to see the people take back America from the corporate money that "owns" it now. This country belongs to the people, contrary to what corporate thinks. Edwards is the "only" candidate, in the top tier, that makes it clear we need to "take it back", not go on with business as usual!

[polichick]

13. Exactly - no more business as usual!

I'm disgusted when Hillary talks about having Colin Powell mend fences around the world, or Obama talks about uniting with Republicans ~ it's so NOT what I want to hear. This country belongs to the people from whom the Republicans stole it.

[cali]

41. but it doesn't bother you when Edwards vows to have repukes

in his cabinet? How interesting.

[MaineDem]

7. I'm liking him

I think I'm leaning towards him.

[Radical Activist]

8. Its Joe Trippi

Joe Trippi works for Edwards now. He got Dean to use the same language. This is two elections where Trippi sold someone with a moderate record to the liberal net roots with his Lakoff phrasing. I guess he's good at what he does. He knows what wording a candidate needs to use to get support from liberals no matter what their real political record is.

Trippi's organizing and connections would also explain all the big blogs going early for Edwards. Now I understand it.

[polichick]

10. Well, what's the reason for Obama NOT saying what liberals want to hear??

I call it pandering to the right.

So you think Edwards is lying about his left-wing rhetoric because you think Obama's lying about his right-wing rhetoric???

[maximusveritas]

16. Any examples

of him pandering to the right or using right-wing rhetoric?

Failure to use left-wing rhetoric does not imply that he's pandering to the right.
If anything, he's pandering the noncommittal center by avoiding the rhetoric of either extreme. It's still a form of pandering, just not as blatantly obvious as the others.

[polichick]

19. His unity message is a form of pandering imo...

I want to unite with the Bushies about as much as I want to unite with any psycopath. No thank you very much!

[BR_Parkway]

22. Well, there was that "ex gay" gospel singer episode....

[maximusveritas]

26. Not really rhetoric

but even then, I think it was a refusal to pander to left-win groups asking for McClurkin to be taken off the bill. He was pandering to the center with that as well. Kind of like Clinton's Sista Souljah moment, but in a different way.

[polichick]

27. He should be "representing" the left imo - that's not pandering. nt

[Radical Activist]

18. Obama says what this liberal wants to hear.

I don't buy the spin people are putting on his words. All these attempts to make everything Obama says look conservative sounds like a lot of baloney to me.

[polichick]

21. But would you mind answering the question I asked you in #10?? nt

[Radical Activist]

24. First

I don't think Obama is using right wing rhetoric.

Edwards sounds more liberal now than he was as Senator. I'm skeptical about that just like I was skeptical when Dean did the same thing. I don't know if its lying but I want someone with a more consistent record. Obama has always been there. He's not a recent convert to liberalism.

[polichick]

25. It's possible that Obama is more liberal than he sounds to me...

...and that Edwards has been more conservative than he now sounds ~ but I appreciate that Edwards says what I want to hear, and has specific plans to make it happen. Obama uses such vague language that it's impossible to tell what he would even try to do in office ~ except unite with Republicans.

[BeyondGeography]

38. It's being who he is, and always has been

He tries not to deal in bullshit, figures it will help on the credibilty side when it comes to delivering what was promised.

Obama routinely scores higher on trustworthiness than the other candidates for that reason.

[polichick]

45. He scores high on trustworthiness because he avoids tough votes...

...and talks a lot but says little?

People sure are easy!

[amandabeech]

36. I thinkk that Trippi has something to work with in Edwards.

What Edwards is saying and doing now is a combo of "Two Americas" what he must have been as a trial lawyer.

Trial lawyers hate corporations, and the corps don't like them, either. Witness today's thread on who is getting what money.

I've known people who work for Trippi, and he's good.

But I don't think that Trippi has created anything in Edwards that wasn't already there. Has he brought it out? Maybe. But you can't bring out what's not there. I didn't think that Howard Dean was particularly convincing in the role. Edwards is because there's an awful lot of what he is right there. He's Fred Thompson playing Fred Thompson in Marie.

I know Edwards's record. It isn't perfect, and he's made mistakes. This guy never spent time around the Washington or Harvard crowd like some of the others have, and frankly, I think that he got knocked off his game for awhile. I know I did.

I find it interesting that Washington and Wall Street insiders don't seem to be all over him anymore and he's not getting much money from his buddies in the hedge funds. My guess is that he really didn't fit all that well in that crowd, and now knows it and has left it behind.

Just my 2 cents.

[denem]

9. Howard Dean, is that you? er no

it's Joe Trippi (again). I want my Howard back.

Edwards (2003) vs Edwards (2007) = Joe Trippi. Next we will hear that Obama is Corporate Lite.

[polichick]

11. Was it Howard or Joe??

I worked on Dean's campaign from the beginning ~ and miss the old Howard Dean.

[denem]

12. Trippi has taken Howard's formula

and tried to paint it on Edwards. The "people's insurgent" for example. Now we are getting watered down versions of "I want my country back". Hopefully we will never get "People Powered Edwards".

If Edwards gets elected, and sticks to the policies he has outlined, I will be one very happy camper. And I can't see it happening. I believed, and continue to believe that Howard Dean meant what he said. This time round the only candidate who gives me the same confidence is Joe Biden.

[polichick]

15. I believed Howard...

YOU HAVE THE POWER! Gosh, I wish people remembered that more often.

But I don't think the message is watered down ~ we DO want our country back and, though Edwards isn't Howard, I think he'll try to deliver.

[Radical Activist]

20. We already have heard it.

Maybe that's where the spin from blogs about Obama being conservative is coming from. Trippi.

[karynnj]

47. It makes sense

The odd thing is that I bet Trippi would love Obama as his candidate. Being able to use the fact that he came out of Harvard, when he could get any high powered, high paying position, he chose to be a public advocate on the south side of Chicago and a Civil Rights lawyer. Then went to the Illinois Senate and passed healthcare and ethics legislation.

Obama has a more consistent background than Edwards - where his whole Senate career has essentially been disowned. In one case, you can see long term committment, the other a wide eyed plea to believe what he is now saying.

[bvar22]

65. Well, the TRUTH does eventually OUT.

Actually, Hillary is Corporate Lite.
Obama is Hillary Lite

[annie1]

14. i love his there for the people attitude. he rocks.

[Hieronymus]

23. I believe Edwards' promises.

[laureloak]

62. Me too.

[spooky3]

28. I think Edwards is right that there can be no compromising with them

If we have learned nothing else in the past 15 years, it is that the dominant forces in today's Republican Party respect no one who is willing to "reach across the aisle." They see it as foolishness and weakness, blood in the water, and they have no moral hesitation about taking advantage, regardless of the consequences, laughing all the way. They aren't going to "work with" Democrats; they will roll over them if they can. As long as these people are in leadership positions, the only way to deal with Republicans is for the Dems. get enough seats in Congress as well as the White House so that they have to capitulate.

[polichick]

32. Yep, he knows the definition of "insanity" is...

"Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

(Attributed both to Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein ~ neither one of them a slouch!)

[amandabeech]

34. Yes. They are ruthless bastards.

They actually used to have some reasonable people who could make deals.

Those days are over. There are no deals with Cheney. There were no deals with Lott or Delay.

They take no prisoners.

If the electorate wants folks to work together, then the pubbies are going to have to elect some folks who are reasonable and at least a little honest.

That's not coming from today's "ME ME ME" party.

[wyldwolf]

29. Edwards panders to the 2%

... who believe the Democratic party was once a "progressive"* utopia.

[polichick]

30. Or he represents the part of the Democratic Party that hasn't sold its soul. nt

[wyldwolf]

31. ...and more of that "progressive"* utopian-speak.

[polichick]

33. Lol - your message is exactly why we need to...

TAKE BACK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! (Just like JE said.)

[wyldwolf]

40. how can you take back what you never had?

[polichick]

44. The party hasn't always been polluted by the DLC...

Thank goodness!

[wyldwolf]

48. but the party has always been dominated by centrists

[polichick]

51. Not sure about that...

But I am sure that if the party can't distinguish itself from corporate politics as usual, it won't have a future.

[wyldwolf]

52. I'm completely sure about that

But I am sure that if the party can't distinguish itself from corporate politics as usual, it won't have a future.

The Party can, the far left can't.

[polichick]

55. Obviously, it's a matter of perspective...

You see the Dems as a centrist party historically ~ I see it as the party of civil rights and women's rights and environmental advances. If the party stays in the clutches of the DLC and corporate interests, it's not the party I relate to and I don't care if it has a future.

[wyldwolf]

59. no, not really

Most of the ideas and policies labeled "DLC" or "Republican-lite" by today's "progressive"* movement are rooted in the policies of Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy.

I've spent a great time studying this. If you want to debate, I'd be happy to.

Based on your perspective, you've been wearing rose colored glasses.

[polichick]

61. I don't particularly care about your studies...

I'm interested in furthering our unfinished work when it comes to rights for all people and environmental protection. Period. Are you saying that the Democratic party hasn't fought for those things in the past???

[wyldwolf]

66. why try to change the subject?

The Democratic party has always taken a realistic, pragmatic approach to these things. See, the difference between you and I is I want these things but understand the political limitations of achieving them.

[polichick]

67. As usual, you avoid the question...

Are you saying that the Democratic party hasn't fought for civil rights, women's rights and the environment in the past?? Why not answer this simple question?

Your "pragmatic" approach now involves the influence of countless corporations with a vested interest in NOT reaching our goals ~ FORGET IT!

[wyldwolf]

68. as usual, you change the subject and start a new question.

Why do you want this conversation to go on an up/down twisty turny direction?

[polichick]

69. Lol - good try! nt

[wyldwolf]

70. sorry. You're avoiding historical perspective on this like it's the plague

[polichick]

76. Not so - historically the party has NOT been owned by corporations...

...which is exactly why Edwards mentions TAKING THE PARTY BACK, along with TAKING THE WHITE HOUSE back and TAKING THE COUNTRY BACK.

It's about taking it all back from corporate America ~ which imo means ditching the DLC.

[Armstead]

57. This current definition of "centrist" is very different from the old moderates

If centrist actually meant in the center of where the American people are, you might have a point.

But the current version of centrist is scornful and disdainful of liberalism.

That's very different than a moderate, which is what the Democratic Party used to represent.

If he were alive today, Hubert Humphrey would probably be considered too far to the left by the neo-centrists today.

[wyldwolf]

64. no it isn't

"Centrist" has ALWAYS been one who can take the best ideas from the left and the right to form a pragmatic set of political beliefs. :shrug:

But the current version of centrist is scornful and disdainful of liberalism.

As it has always been. Check quotes from Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy on the subject. By the same token, the current version of "progressives"* is scornful and disdainful of centrism.

[Armstead]

73. The devil is always in the details

I'm well aware of the historical tensions between the liberal and conservative wings of the Democratic Party.

I'm also well aware that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless when separated from specific issues.

I'm very liberal or progressive on many economic issues, for example, but I would just as soon see gun control placed on a very limited basis. So I'm probably a conservative on that issue......Someone who is pro-choice on abortion is ultimately similtaneously a libertarian in terms of personal freedom but liberal in terms of preferring that freedom to be protected by the Federal government.

The definition of "centrist" is also meaningless in broad terms. Everyone, including moderate Republicans and progressives, could call themselves "centrists" by the broad definition of saying that there are good ideas on all sides of the spectrum, and that the solution is to find the best mix. That's like saying you're for motherhood and apple pie.

For example, are you aware of the economic-decentralism movement? (No relation to the word "centrism.")..That grew out of the "left" in the 1970's. But as a desire to bring institutions down to the grass roots it also reflects traditional conservatism and mainstream American values. Their focus is on creating stronger local community-based economies, as a balancing antidote to Big Money Corporatism....It's progressive but it's also pro-small business and the true spirit of free enterprise (as opposed to neo-liberal "free marklets.")

All of these things are the reasons these simplistic swipes against "the progressives" as a monolithic bunch of dopes get my goat. If the so-called "centrists" would actually listen to those awful "progressives" there might actually be a chance for a mutually respectful dialogue and attempt to find common ground.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

75. "progressives"* like Mythsaje and republicans - cut from the same cloth.

When you introduce facts into the discussion, they just change the subject. Or use personal attacks.

[polichick]

77. Today you can't talk about centrist Dems without talking about...

...the influence of corporate America, which is what Edwards is so concerned about (and me too).

[Armstead]

54. Either you're a troll or you just like to stir the pot for its own sake

I think very few of those people you label "the progressives" believe there was ever a utopian democratic Party.

The vast majority of us would be satisfued just to get back to an actual balance in which the liberal/progressive segment of the US is adequately represented within the political process.

And by liberal/progressive, I simply mean that there is an adequate counterbalance to the tendency of market economies to move towards extreme monopolization of wealth and power.

That is not some fringe "left" position. Instead, it is a widely held mainstream view held by a majority of Americans.

[wyldwolf]

56. clearly you're a troll or misinformed.

Someone here since 2002 and known by many of the the mods and admins - so NOT a troll.

Rather, someone who has spent a great deal of time, both academically and personally, studying the history of the Democratic party from Woodrow Wilson to the present day.

The Democratic party has NEVER been a "progressive"* party. Further, there were times when it was clearly more conservative than it is today.

[Armstead]

60. Then you just like to stir the pot

If you have a point to make, you could make it without such grotesque and insulting overgeneralizations like saying that everyone that does not fall into your narrow definition of a "centrist" is one of a 2 percent who wants utopia.

[wyldwolf]

63. if presenting unpopular facts is "stirring the pot," guilty as charged

You're entitled to your opinion about my motives just as I am about your reaction, which is it bothers you (and the "progressive* movement in general) to be contradicted.

[Armstead]

71. Doesn't bother me in the least to be contradficted

But there are ways to do it and there are ways...

[wyldwolf]

72. I guess you can either get used to my "ways" or ignore my posts.

[polichick]

78. That poster preaches the DLC way day in and day out...

...which imo explains both the content and the rudeness.

[sellitman]

35. Bingo!

I couldnt have said it better.

Unite this.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Edwards is a great speaker.

I think Kerry could have done a lot more with him in '04.

[polichick]

46. Yeah, Kerry is a wonderful guy but the campaign was pretty lackluster. nt

[Bongo Prophet]

49. Yep. So lackluster. It was the Bushlovin' media that IGNORED how lustrous it really was.

[polichick]

53. Well, that's true too...

I've been a Kerry fan since the days he spoke out about Viet Nam, but he sure didn't do himself any favors by refusing to stand up against the evil-doers during the campaign. He was far too nice. And Edwards could've played more of a role, since he is such a good speaker.

Makes me sick to think how different things would be if Kerry were president now!!!

[Dawgs]

50. Yeah, FUCK 1/3 of Americans!!

[polichick]

58. Which third are you worried about?? nt