Edwards the Candidate of Change?

[ccpup]

I keep hearing people say Edwards is the Candidate of Change, but how true is that? I mean, he says it -- all. the. time. -- and his Supporters say it, but I wonder if his votes as a one term Senator reflect that? Does his work in the private sector reflect that? Consistently?

I'm just curious.

[Mass]

1. His votes are irrelevant - He has acknowledged he was wrong all along.

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

2. Edwards inspires. Change for its own sake is not enough, on its own, to

vote for or against any candidate, IMO.

It's more an imperative of what matters to our national life.

Edwards' campaign has done a remarkably good job of reconnecting potential voters to the things about their country they have seen eroded and reduced under 8 years of the Bush administration.

Sometimes 'change' means restoration. Edwards' supporters rightly see him as a restorer of definitive, characterological American citizenship.

He's not in the lead in the national polling but his themes have significantly shaped this nomination race.

[ccpup]

6. which brings up an interesting point

The reason I ask this is because I was discussing the candidates with a very good friend of mine in France and she wanted to know WHAT has Edwards done to support his rhetoric that he's the Candidate of Change?

She took a cursory look at his record as Senator and his history as an Attorney and, in her view, saw little that backed up these stirring speeches he was making. So, she was curious as to why the American People were (potentially, in her view) being duped again by someone who could talk a good game, but apparently didn't have the history of actually delivering.

If I say to her, taking from your Post, "Edwards' supporters rightly see him as a restorer of definitive, characterological American citizenship", she'll want to know WHY they think that and what PROOF is there -- based on his actual record -- that this is actually correct?

I don't have the facts at hand to support anything right now. So I'm trying to figure it out.

[saltpoint]

9. Edwards is positioned against corporate control of individual citizenship and

livelihood.

These are (rightly) perceived components of the words of origin in our Constitution.

That's a very significant context in which to present a candidacy.

The Union support, for example, is significant for Edwards because wage-earners have had it bad in the last quarter of a century. Union support is a gauge of ideological alignment. If union members felt HClinton could better deliver on those words of origin, they'd be for her candidacy in larger numbers.

They aren't.

[Czolgosz]

22. !

[Connie_Corleone]

3. If they're referring to his voting record, he's a candidate of change alright.

[GreenArrow]

16. good 'un!

:7

[polichick]

4. It's simple imo...

Edwards gets that we have to take the country back from corporations if we're going to solve our problems. He pointed out the differences between top tier candidates on Hardball last night ~ Hillary defends our broken system; Obama knows it's broken but thinks corporate America will give up its power voluntarily; and Edwards knows that the people are even more powerful than the "entrenched powers" and he'll FIGHT with the people to take back THE PARTY, the WHITE HOUSE, and the COUNTRY.

[ccpup]

8. yes, that's all well and good

but the question remains WHAT in his record as Senator and his history as an Attorney proves he backs that up with good, strong hard work and tough votes? That's the crux of this question.

It's easy to say everything he says, but -- when it comes down to it -- how did he vote in the Senate? What did he do as a Private Citizen? I think that's where the confusion lies for some people. It's very easy to make a stirring speech centered around a populist theme. It's much more difficult to actually have to cast a potentially politically difficult vote to back those ideas up.

Not intending to sound abrasive, but people are turning to me for answers and I'd like to give them something better than "well, he says so".

[polichick]

18. imo his success in fighting corporations...

...puts him in the best spot to make the big changes we need ~ the Senate experience merely showed him how that game is played. Nothing else counts if we can't get rid of corporate influence in policymaking, and nobody else will tackle this the way Edwards can.

I've been tough on all the candidates, only deciding in the last month or so that Edwards is my choice of the top three. I wondered about his sincerity, his lifestyle, his ego ~ but finally decided that, with a sick wife and a beautiful home, he wouldn't be doing this if he didn't have a calling. His son Wade was the one who inspired him to try public service ~ I've concluded that John Edwards has finally figured out how to use the gifts that made him so good in the courtroom to get the country out of the mess we're in.

[cali]

5. A lot of his supporters believe he's genuine in his beliefs and that

he's changed. They clearly see him as a candidate for change. If he's the nominee, I sincerely hope they're right.

Oh yeah, and asking this question makes you nothing but an Edwards hater. :sarcasm:

[ccpup]

7. lol

oh, cali, you crack me up. :toast:

[Czolgosz]

10. If you judge Al Gore only on his Senate votes you reach a similar conclusion. Obviously Edwards and

Gore have both grown tremendously since their time in the Senate, and they have evolved from moderates to real progressive heroes.

Edwards's platform is more progressive than anyone's but Kucinich's.

[dmosh42]

11. He's definitely not the favorite of the 'big' corporations....

and does have a record of fighting the 'big' corporations. And if anyone follows the congressional record, those same corporations are the reason why we're having these constitutional crisis in DC. Nothing will be done if they're not challenged.

[Stop Cornyn]

19. Exactly. Also, between Edwards, Obama, and Hillary, Edwards has the most progressive healthcare plan

that uses market forces against private for-profit insurers which will have to compete with the non-profit public sector and this will ultimately lead to a public universal single payer system, the most progressive pro-labor and pro-education and pro-living-wage-for-working families plan to fight poverty, the most progressive plan to restore equity to the tax system, the most progressive trade and labor plans, the most progressive response to the mortgage and broader predatory lending crises, and the most progressive plan to restore and promote the American values of an equal right to civil liberties and economic justice abroad.

That's just a few reasons why Edwards is the most progressive candidate choice between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.

I wish Dennis Kucinich's even more progressive platform was viable, but if we can't elect Kucinich, we need to get behind the next most progressive alternative.

[Czolgosz]

21. too true

[annie1]

12. actually, btwn edwards, hil and obama, he's strikes me as the one who is for most change...

even though his votes were kinda of typical in the past. Just like during a debate when Gravel said to him, 'you're not the same edwards i used to know'. i think it's true. he seems freakin' pissed right now. I think means it.

[frazzled]

13. Because he changes his positions all the time

In that sense, he is definitely the candidate of change: he will change to whatever the electoral necessities demand.

[ozone_man]

14. One indication is that Nader supports him.

And he would only do that for a progressive/anticorporate candidate, or one who shows that potential. He said that if Edwards maintains his consistency that he would probably support him.

Ralph Nader supports Edwards' anti-corporate message
Mike Aivaz and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday December 18, 2007

Perennial third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader was asked by Hardball's Chris Matthews on Monday, "Is there anybody in this campaign you like the looks of that can win, so that you wouldn't have to run?"

"I do like Kucinich. But the frontrunners -- Edwards now has the most progressive message across a broad spectrum ... of any leading candidate I've seen in years," Nader replied. "The key phrase is when he says he doesn't want to replace a corporate Republican with a corporate Democrat. ... He raises the issue of the concentration of power and wealth in a few hands that are working against the interests of the vast majority of the American people."

"What's the alternative to corporate power?" Matthews asked.

"Sovereignty of the people," responded Nader. "It's people taking back their government ... cleaning up campaign corruption ... empowering workers ... controlling Congress."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Nader_likes_Kucinich_thinks_Edwards_looks_1218.html

Also Ben Cohen from Ben & Jerry's, another progressive.

November 12th, 2007
Ben Cohen Speculates on Edwards Flavor
by Philip Baruth

After some early flirtation with Obama, Ben and Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen has finally settled on John Edwards. And those of us in Vermont know what that means: it won’t be long before an Edwards-themed ice cream hits the shelves.

But Cohen is denying any imminent tie-in, for the time being. Still, in a press conference two days ago, Ben did allow himself to speculate on what such a flavor might taste like, if such a flavor were in fact to be brought to market (from Real Clear Politics):

“Pressed on what an Edwards flavor might be, Cohen stuck to message. ‘It’s not going to be a very fluffy flavor,’ he predicted. ‘It’s going to be a very solid flavor.’ Cohen speculated that the flavor might be called ‘Captain Courageous Crunch,’ though he may want to run that by lawyers for Quaker Oats, which makes the cereal, before production begins.”

http://vermontdailybriefing.com/?p=786

[aintitfunny]

15. Perhaps we believe he is THE Candidate of Change

because he is the only one speaking of change in response to the reality of today as compared to the realities several years ago when he was a Senator. He, like so many of us, recognizes that the current level of corporate greed and power is not simply capitalism at work - it is an obscenity. It has damaged this country and if someone does not do something soon, there will be no return. He sees the ever widening chasm between the haves and the rising number of have nots. I see this as well, I appreciate that he sees it and since he sees it, and by all appearances seems to be a decent human being,I believe he will do his best to see that things change. I don't hear this from the other candidates. When I see other candidates cozying up to those who are the problem, it fully illustrates that they are not candidates for change.

[saltpoint]

17. There is also the notion that earnest and genuine representation can

affect meaningful reform in the long term better than a banner slogan.

Politicians in part have to calculate media coverage of their message and so hone slogans to meet that market.

But voter expectation in a place like Iowa, for example, is not nearly as media-driven. Ads flood the airwaves, yes, and papers get read, but the pig farmer and the night-shift nurse and the Math teacher and the stay-at-home-dad and the single mom are listening for both partciulars AND the broader themes that connect -- or reconnect -- them to who they are.

I believe our Democrats generally understand that distinction loads better than any of the 8 Pukes and of our 8, I think Edwards has been at it longer. Significant residual affection for John and Elizabeth Edwards remains in Iowa from the 04 campaign and may buoy their chances on January 3rd. Their polling is up and the energy in the event crowds is discernibly up.

But if they enjoy that good fortune, my guess is it has to do with earnest and geunine representation of individual Iowans' collective concerns (!) as opposed to a specific slogan or phrase in a campaign.

Just my take.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. Actions speak louder than words.