Edwards Aims To Focus on The Positive (Wash Post front page)

[chimpymustgo]

Candidate Says Anger At Bush Won't Prevail

By Edward Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 12, 2003; Page A01


Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said yesterday that beneath their deep anger at President Bush, Democratic voters have a strong yearning for a positive message that the party's eventual presidential nominee must convey to have any chance of defeating Bush next November.


After months of almost nonstop campaigning in the key early states in the nomination process, the senator from North Carolina said he is convinced that voters "need leaders who are running for president who aren't talking about what's wrong, but talking about what we together can do to make it right. And I think that's the component I absolutely believe will decide this election at the end of the day."

He said that Bush may be hampered next year by the state of the economy and the situation in Iraq, "but as long as we're not getting people inspired and excited about what we can do for this country, we will not win this election."

-snip-

"It is true that you can get Democratic activists on their feet cheering much more quickly bashing George Bush than any other way," Edwards said. "But remember, we're going through a process here and people are looking for a president. They're not looking for somebody who can just beat up George Bush. They're looking for someone who can inspire them and lead them."

That is why, Edwards indicated, he harbors hope that he can win the nomination despite trailing Dean and others in public opinion polls. "It's one thing, in July, to say, 'I like that guy. He's really tough on Bush,' " Edwards said. "Well, they're not electing a president in July. Come January and February, they're looking for a leader."

-snip-

© 2003 The Washington Post Company


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28251-2003Nov11.html 
  
*******

In keeping with our current theme on anger - and how best to channel it. I like the Edwards way. Optimism about positive change will appeal to a broad sector of Americans.

[Renew Deal]

1. And the leader isn't John Edwards

He wouldn't even win NC against Bush. We don't need a home state loser that BTW voted for the patriot act. The only thing I am waiting for from Edwards is his concession speech.

[AP]

3. Edwards is closer to Bush in NC than Clinton was to Bush I at this point

...in '91.

Edwards would almost definitely beat Bush in NC.

[Bombtrack]

6. no serious candidate is as pro-civil liberties as Edwards

None of them would repeal it or did/would have voted against it, but only Edwards has a real plan to permanantly protect civil liberties.

Who the hell do you support

[Rooktoven]

24. You'll be waiting a while, amigo... -nt

[HFishbine]

2. He's right

I have spoken.

[Liberal_Andy]

7. who's right?

i ask.

[HFishbine]

9. YOU HEARD ME DAMNIT. DON'T MAKE ME SAY IT AGAIN!

;)

No, really. Don't make me say it again.

[AP]

4. Good quote:

On what Americans Edwards talks to on campaign trail care about:

"The way they think about it is they're scared," Edwards said. "They know they're too much in debt, they know they're having trouble paying bills . . . and these aren't poor people, these are middle-class working families and they know if something goes wrong -- this is one of the reasons they worry about health care -- they're off the edge, they're falling off the cliff. There's been a big sea change in this country in the last 20 years, and Bush doesn't see the sea change."

[AP]

10. I'd like to remind people of the Great Depression for a moment.

Edwards is using the word "scared" to describe how people feel about their finances right now in a way that is probably intended to get people to think about what happened in the 30s in the US and in Germany.

This is how fascism starts. People are scared. Politicians then play off those fears to get people to vote for a set of policies that aren't designed to help them, but are designed to further entrench the political and economic power of a very small group of people who already have a great deal of wealth and power.

FDR knew that this kind of anxiety was the breeding ground for a turn towards less democracy and more fascism. He didn't exploit those fears because he knew that any gain he'd get for his party would only be temporary, and that to do so would ensure that America would move toward fascism. FDR tried to strike at the root of those fears -- he tried to increase the wealth of the working and middle class. He was able to achieve that and it ended up pulling the carpet out from under the feet of the people who wanted to turn America towards fascism.

Edwards has the same focus that FDR had.

[ShaneGR]

5. He is right, there needs to be a positive message

Just bashing bush will get us nowhere. We need to mix it up.

[chimpymustgo]

8. A positve message AND solutions.

That is where Edwards is especially impressive: he has offered detailed plans to deal with the economic and foreign policy crises we are facing. Specific plans to improve the lives of working (an non-working) people. Not just angry rhetoric.

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. we need our own "morning in America " message

and Edwards is perfect to deliver it since he has come up from the bottom in more ways than one!

[spooky3]

17. That's why I like him.

For example, he is exactly right that it is outrageously inequitable that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than the hourly wages of a secretary or firefighter or anyone else. And it is admirable that someone who probably receives plenty of capital gains is proposing it. It is an easy solution but only Edwards seems to "get it." Taxes may be boring, but understanding them is critical to fashioning the right solutions to the serious problems he's hearing about. I also liked his strong stance opposing caps on medical liability. A small minority of doctors are responsible for most of the negligence findings. The solution is not to penalize those who are truly injured for life but to hold accountable those few negligent persons.

[Forkboy]

12. as much as I appreciate people's anger

(as I share it and then some) that alone will not convince people to vote for us.It will be,or should be anyways,a part of the message but even then the anger should be directed at the direction the policies of Bush have gone more than the man himself.

It almost pains me to say it but anger alone will hurt us.

[bearfartinthewoods]

13. saying that around here might get you forked

ok...bad pun...going to the corner now.
:grin:

[Forkboy]

15. bad....bad

:spank:

:)

[Shakespeare]

14. And he says this after hiring Hugh Shelton....???

Oh, the irony! :crazy:

[AP]

16. "hired"?

Edwards has said nothing but nice things about General Clark, by the way.

[Shakespeare]

18. Hired as a consultant, yes...

Let's see...Clark is killing Edwards in his own backyard. Shelton has been the most vocal with unsubstantiated smears against Clark. Now, really, do you think those two things have nothing to do with Edwards' hiring Shelton as a consultant?

Edwards hasn't gone negative on Clark...yet. Those Carolina primaries loom large, though; let's see what happens as they draw nearer.

on edit: Incidentally, I think Clark/Edwards would be a formidable ticket--possibly the most powerful ticket to take on Bush--so I hope Edwards doesn't go negative on the General. I was terribly disappointed to see that Edwards had hired him (in part because of his nasty attacks on Clark, and in part because he's a shameless Bush fellater), and I hope Edwards doesn't use him--or isn't used by Shelton--for negative purposes.

[AP]

19. He's not a paid consultant, by the way. Has Edwards said anything bad

about Clark?

Nope.

[Shakespeare]

20. I don't care if he's getting cash for his services or not.

He's working with Edwards' campaign, and I find the association highly suspect, regardless of what Edwards has or has not said publicly about Clark.

Let's just see what the future holds. I hope you're correct and nothing negative comes of the association, but I'm not optimistic.

[Shakespeare]

21. Also, please see my edit.

I don't dislike Edwards at all--I'm just extremely troubled by his association with Shelton (and I don't care HOW far they go back--Shelton's a scumbag as far as I'm concerned).

[chimpymustgo]

22. But it sure was a nice article in the Post. I like that positive attitude

That's what the Dems NEED.

[criticalwords]

23. Why is Shelton a scumbag???

And don't say because..."HE IS A REPBULICAN."

You don't even know that.

Get a clue! Clark is the scumbag. He is the one who praised Bush, Cheny, and Rumsfeld...LAST YEAR...not Shelton.

http://speakerseries.com/spk2003/shelton.htm

[Shakespeare]

25. uh, gee, because he makes unsubstantiated smears?

Even McCain slammed him for it. And no matter whether he's officially declared or not, Shelton is a 100% Bush supporter...that's republican enough for me.

You think Shelton hasn't praised Bush? Don't know what cave you've been living in, but Shelton is very, very, very (and very vocally) pro-Bush. Other republicans who've jumped on Shelton's bash-Clark bandwagon: Tommy Franks and Norman Schwarzkopf--Stormin' Norman even had the (lack of intellectual) gall to say that the reason he didn't like Clark was because Hugh Shelton said bad things about him. What an enlightened bunch.