Can Edwards win with an 'us vs. them' pitch?

[DeepModem Mom]

USA Today: Can Edwards win with an 'us vs. them' pitch?
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY


Democratic hopeful John Edwards visits Council Bluffs, Iowa

....This time, the 2004 vice presidential nominee has a repackaged message framing the campaign as a struggle that pits the political and corporate elite against regular people who just want to make a decent living, afford health care and end the Iraq war. Edwards, who made millions as a personal-injury lawyer taking on big business, tells audiences he understands that they feel squeezed because they "pay more for everything … but their pay is not going up."

Edwards' challenge is to convince voters in primaries and caucuses that he is a populist who would put their interests above those of big corporations and big government. He must prove that message will triumph over the personal and political appeal of Clinton and Obama, and sell across the nation, especially to moderate and independent voters important in a general election.

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Iowa's Drake University, says Edwards' themes remind him of the us-vs.-them populism of the 1960s. The message hasn't worked since then on a national level except for Jimmy Carter in 1976, says Martin Kaplan, a professor at the University of Southern California. "Carter campaigned as a man of the people," he says. "He stayed in people's homes instead of hotels and carried his own luggage."..."It's one thing to talk about how individuals and their families are supposed to have equality and opportunity," Goldford says, "but most people don't think of themselves as poor. Most people think of themselves as trying really hard."

He doubts that populism will work now for Edwards. "There's a danger for him," Goldford says, because by crafting his message for caucus and primary voters, Edwards could be "undercutting the reasons" for moderates and independents to support him.

David Rohde, a political science professor at Duke University, says the time might be right for a resurgence of populism. "What would make it even more plausible is if the economy went into a tailspin. … The appeal of populism is class-based, on behalf of the people at the bottom of the economic spectrum when economic power is divided very unevenly."

Edwards welcomes the label. "If the word populist means that I stand with ordinary Americans against powerful interests, the answer's yes, but that phrase is sometimes used in an old, backward-looking way," he says in an interview with USA TODAY. His brand of populism is "very forward-looking," based on big ideas that will help all Americans, he says....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-13-edwards-cover_N.htm

[TerdlowSmedley]

1. With the "Us" growing bigger day by day, I would say yes.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I would have said, "no" four years ago, but yes, yes, yes by today's

standards. Why? Because even the Republican middle class is not happy that their wealthier Republican relatives are living the high life, while they, in turn, are struggling. So, I say, strike while the iron's hot.

[SaveElmer]

3. That is the major problem with a populist campaign...

It requires an enemy...

The problem is, no matter how accurate his criticisms may be...a significant chunk of the people he will need to get him elected work for those corporations...particularly if they are not unionized, this will be viewed by many of them as an attack on their livelihood...

Populist movements in the U.S. fail to get a strong foothold on power precisely because the message requires an us vs them appeal...historically it is too divisive...

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Yes, and God knows the Republican strategy to take over our

country in the 90s wasn't based on divise tactics.

Where their diviseness was based on half-truths and prejudice, I suggest we stick to the facts.

[SaveElmer]

8. Name for me a populist movement...

In American history that has successfully taken political power...elected a President or a majority in congress...

Republican divisiveness is partisan...

Populist divisiveness is class and economic based...

A strategy on that basis has never worked...and won't this year either...

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Somebody already responded to your original inquiry.

The New Deal and some of the current elections were populists.

Listen, in order for a populist idea to emerge, we need to have a clear example that the average middle class American is being exploited. That is the easy part, because examples abound.

We've been saying since forever, why do Republicans keep voting against their own interests? And the answer is, because no one has been able to get a word in with Rove constantly tweaking their prejudices. So, divisive politics are clearly in play, what we have to do is find a way to get our message across to them before the other guy turns up the volume.

A common interest. That's what it will take to cross party lines. You might call it "us vs. them." But what Democrat is really going to resist, unless it's a wealthy Democrat who fits into the "rich" category.

[SaveElmer]

22. New Deal was not populist...

And in fact was a fairly conservative response to the crisis of the Depression. Populists at the time were in deep disagreement with Roosevelt...Huey Long and Father Coughlin among the most famous...

I am not saying populists movements have not had an impact, they certainly have...but as a method of gaining and retaining power they are doomed to failure.

Your point about people voting against their own best interests is certainly true, but I do not believe a populist appeal will bring them back...

For many social issues are paramount, which the Republicans are good at exploiting...figuring different ways to get our message across without playing on right wing turf is the key to getting those voters voting in their best interests again...

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. I think we have a difference of opinion on the basic defintions.

The New Deal was not a conservative response to a bad situation. The New Deal was socialist if you want to be frank about it. It couldn't have proceeded without public support. It made sure that the public had jobs and money, because it was apparent that the wealthy conservative classes weren't doing enough to create jobs. And who knows, maybe they couldn't?

[SaveElmer]

27. Well it really wasn't...

Take a very close look at New Deal programs...they were not as wide sweeping as is portrayed. Roosevelt was very concerned about setting up an over dependence on the federal government...

In fact most people were not directly affected by these programs during the depression...relatively few people actually benefited. And in fact social security was very narrowly drawn and heavily criticized at the time as too timid. Roosevelt's goal, and what he succeeded in doing, was to save Capitalism from its own excesses.

Roosevelt did succeed, despite his actual wishes in redefining the governments role in the economy. Regulation is now largely accepted as necessary. But there was no radical change in the nature of our economic or political system.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. Well, we'll respectfully disagree.

By the way, would you be a conservative Democrat, by any chance?

[SaveElmer]

30. Center...

Very liberal on social issues, would consider myself a moderate on economic issues...

[Dr Fate]

32. Where does supporting multi-billion dollar wars based on lies fall in that spectrum?

You left out war and FP in your analysis. Is it "moderate" "center" "conservative" or "far right" to support a multi-billion dollar, endless war long after you know it is based on lies?

I'm not saying you supported expensive, endless wars based on lies, but a lot of DLC types claim their support of such a thing was a "moderate" position- what sez you?

[SaveElmer]

35. I would consider myself a Hubert Humphrey Democrat...

I think we need to be engaged in the world, should not be afraid to exert power where it is necessary, but should do so in conjunction with others. Rarely do our actual vital interests not coincide with those of others. If we find ourselves going it alone, then we need to review what we consider vital. An example of an international military operation that I supported and believe was successful was the operation in Kosovo...where I think we (and NATO) prevented a truly appalling genocide...

I think we should not be afraid to intervene militarily in Darfur...

I supported the action in Afghanistan...

I did not support the invasion of Iraq, because it did not meet these criteria. It was not demonstrated that we were threatened, we did not have the support of others, and the consequences of the invasion were worse than the demonstrated benefits of going in. I did support an aggressive campaign of inspections...which is what we were getting before Bush cut them short to invade...and if it had been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt (which we did not get), that Iraq had a significant WMD capability, then action would have been required...

[Dr Fate]

39. So where does supporting Bush's war fall on your spectrum? Center? Right? Moderate?

I mean supporting and not opposing it after it was found out that it was baed on lies (Before we even invaded)

I'm trying to visualize your political spectrum- if FDR's New Deal was "conservative" (Center-to-right?)- then Edward's much less agressive version must be out-right right-wing- and supporting endless, multi-billion dollar wars must be WAYYYYY right- right?

[SaveElmer]

43. You have a simplistic notion of these terms...

Rooted in modern definitions...

You asked me about FP and Iraq, and where I stood...and I told you...

As to whether Roosevelt was "Conservative," I did not argue he was politically conservative...I have argued that the New Deal programs were a relatively conservative response to the crisis...

In the 1930's Roosevelt was not the populist...Huey Long was representative of populism.

Roosevelt was attacked from the left throughout the 1930's, and his response to the depression was a comparatively conservative one. He did not initiate a fundamental reorienting of the economic, political, or class structure, did not initiate a socialistic or communistic response to the economic crisis, and was highly concerned about creating an over dependence on government...

In terms of the 1930's this was a very restrained response to the crisis...his goal, and what he succeeded in doing was to save Capitalism from its own excesses...

While social security is the most famous of his reforms (and even here he was criticized for being too timid)...I would argue his greatest achievement was embedding the notion of economic regulation as a necessary part of government responsibility...the SEC was probably his greatest and longest lasting achievement...

[Dr Fate]

45. So do swing-voters. Is supporting a war based on lies "moderate" or "right-wing?"

I say it's pretty far right.

I'd also say that your political spectrum leaves much to be desired- anything that is historically successful or popular seems to fall center-to-right- even when that is clearly not the case.

So Roosevelt was attacked by a group of far-lefties- any comparable group that exists today must be less than 1%- and some of them probably dont even vote.

That does not make FDR's New Deal comparable to a damn thing the DLC or Hillary has ever done-much closer to Edwards, actually- it's so many apples and oranges.

Edwards wont be attacked by this far left 1% as much as he will be attacked by the DLC & GOP- so the "New Deal was conservative" comparison is just off base on many levels...

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. He's DLC?

[Dr Fate]

51. Who? Edwards? FDR? I was talking about DLC DUers who claim FDR was not Progressive.

Apparently they base this analysis on the fact that some of the far, far left types didnt think he went far ENOUGH to the left.

They say the same about Truman, Kennedy, LBJ-that they were all basically the DLCers of their day- and MLK wont be far behind is my guess.

[The Backlash Cometh]

52. Yes, so was I.

Thanks. Your reponse clarified some confusion I had speaking to another poster.

[Dr Fate]

31. Of course the New Deal was populist. Only DLCers claim FDR was a "Conservative"

Keep your eye out- it's a meme they all learned somewhere.

Truman's "give'em hell" rhetoric and LBJ's great society pitch was also "conservative" or "centrist" according to them.

I'm sure Martin Luther King will also be a "measured moderate" when they get through revising him as well.

[SaveElmer]

36. "it's a meme they all learned somewhere."

Yes...its called history!

Roosevelt was attacked from the left throughout the 1930's...

[Dr Fate]

38. LOL! I must have slept throught he class where all the "Conservatives" loved FDR.

My bad! I thought that they hated the "New Dealers"- good to know that Hillary supporters think it is moderate.

Guess what- Woody Guthrie wasnt a New Dealer-he was a John Bircher- who knew???

Where does one learn about this odd era of History, where "conservatives" were socialist New Dealers?


;)

[SaveElmer]

40. I didn't say Roosevelt was a conservative...

In a political sense...I said that the New Deal was a comparatively conservative (little "c") response to the depression....particularly compared to what populists, communists and socialists were pushing him to do...

Roosevelt was not interested in a fundamental reorienting of the political or economic structure...nor in stirring up class conflict...but in fact was trying to save Capitalism from its own excesses...


He was pushed from the left throughout the 30s...there are some excellent books on Huey Long for example that you may want to take a look at

[Dr Fate]

42. I see as, compared to Anarchist & militant marxists of 70 years ago-the New Deal was "conservative"

But compared to DLC big business friendly approach of today, the New Deal is certaily "far left."

I'm not sure who the anarchists & marxists of today are- the tiny 1% that likes DK or Nader, I guess.

Compared to them, I guess Edwards is pretty conservative- I mean, your whole evaluation of "conservative" seems to hang on how radical other tiny, marginalized groups people are.

[SaveElmer]

44. You see...the mistake I made...

Is in assuming you were after a serious discussion...

[Dr Fate]

46. Great way to bow out of an argument. I accept your concession.

Serious discussion? You are the one who seemed to suggest that the socialist New Deal is somehow comparable to what Hillary & the DLC will do for us today.

I dont see what was so outrageous or not serious about any of the points I just made- I just think you are ill-equipped to retort them.

[SaveElmer]

49. When you have taken the time...

To research the topic you are discussing...feel free to come back...

[Dr Fate]

53. I've researched it. FDR was not the DLCer of his day. He was a Progressive with socialist tendancies

Just because some on the very furthest reaches of the left did not think he went far enough- and Just becuase Father Caughling- a racist Rush Limbaugh archetype didnt care for him- does not make the New Deal the DLC of the 30s & 40s...

[SaveElmer]

54. Your answers indicate otherwise...

[Dr Fate]

55. My answers indicate that FDR was not the conservative DLCer of his day.

Care to elaborate on or adress any of my specific points, as I have done with all of yours?

[SaveElmer]

57. Point to where I called FDR...

"The DLC'er of the day"

[Dr Fate]

61. I said that that, specifically. You claimed the New Deal was "conservative."

I said it specifically.

You seemed to suggest it- buy saying that the New Deal was conservative for his time.

I apologize if I read more into that than I should have, but I know I didnt. My posts are to be taken with the full context of the "FDR was a moderate/conservative" revisionism that I see on this board every week.

Either way- the New Deal was not moderate anymore than supporting wars based on lies is moderate. My basic theme here is that your political spectrum is out of whack.

If you agree with me that FDR and the DLC would have been at odds, then fair enough- I apologize- but I know that is not what you want to say.

[SaveElmer]

63. In terms of the 1930's

And the nature of the depression crisis, FDR's solutions were a relatively conservative response...for the 1920's they would have been radical...

Comparing political spectrums between eras is folly...

Fact is Roosevelt was under enormous pressure to go much further than he did or than he wanted to go...Father Coughlin was the Rush Limbaugh of his day but he was enormously popular...Huey Long represented the sort of populism that Roosevelt was working to contain...Henry Wallace represented pressure from the left as well...

Roosevelt was not attempting a radical reorientation of the political, economic, or class structure of the country...and thus resisting pressure from the left that was advocating that very thing...

Certainly he faced criticism from conservatives as well who argued he was turning his back on his class etc...and he was not shy about experimentation, but always with the overarching goal of maintaining existing structures...

So comparing Edwards to Roosevelt in terms of political spectrum is pointless...

The original post was on populist campaigns...Roosevelt was not the populist of his day...just because someone has a profound effect on the country does not mean they cannot be in the mainstream of the political spectrum...

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. Thanks.

I really did sense some serious spinning or revisionism going on in his posts.

[Dr Fate]

56. It's a DLC meme- you will see it everywhere now that I've pointed it out to you.

They say the same about Truman or LBJ's great society- etc-they are all now the DLCers of their day- all based on the fact that a marginal group of leftists didnt think they went far enough...

[The Backlash Cometh]

67. DLC should be ashamed of themselves.

It's just one huge power game to them. I don't see how you can claim to have democratic leanings if you're DLC.

[Dr Fate]

41. So if FDR's New Deal was "conservative" then Edward's much tamer approach is what- far right?

It's a mighty odd political spectrum you have crafted here...

[Czolgosz]

23. Reagan's appeal was largely right-wing populism. Whenever you hear the phrases "limousine liberal"

and "latte liberal" and "Hollywood liberal" and "Chardonnay liberal" - you are hearing the slogans of the right-wing populist movement that Reagan perfected and the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter successfully exploit even today. Many of the worst elements of hate radio are based on a right-wing populism that tells white male Christians that they are the victims of discrimination by affirmative action and "welfare queens" and the "gay agenda" and "politically correct liberalism."

And it has been goddamned effective.

Edwards populism is not a call for right-wing hatred like Rush's, but a call for progressive unity on issues that benefit the great majority which comprises better than 90 precent of society.

Does right-wing populism share with progressive populism a rejection of elitism? Yes. But the "elites" who are the target of right-wing populist hate-mongering are invariably the oppressed and those who would speak for the oppressed. In progressive populism, the elites who are rejected are the financial elites who have reaped a great windfall and who are called upon to pay their fair share toward improving society for the vast majority.

Reagan masterfully set the middle class against the poor with the purpose of serving the ultra-rich.

Edwards seeks to restore the natural alliance among the middle class, the poor, and those among the wealthy who are willing and even eager to pay their fair share for the betterment of the common good in America.

The fact that you could even say something like "a strategy on that basis (of class divisiveness) has never worked...and won't this year either..." shows that it has worked so well you haven't even noticed it.

[SaveElmer]

25. I see your point...But Reagan's "populism"...

If you want to call it that was not based on economics..but on divisive social issues...setting up a division of classes on that basis...it certainly was effective, but is not the strategy Edwards is employing...and Reagan himself was not a populist...it was simply an election strategy...

An anti-corporate populism of the type attempted in the 30's is doomed to failure....too many people are dependent on corporations for their livelihood

However, I have to say I think the article this thread is based upon oversimplifies Edwards message...he is not out there ranting crazily like Huey Long...

[Czolgosz]

33. Workers who were stirred by Reagan's railing against affirmative action and "welfare queens"

were definitely responding to an economic right-wing message of populist divisiveness.

The so-called Reagan Democrats were largely folks who were worried about losing their jobs - their economic livelihood - to a class of people who they were mislead to wrongly fear were receiving an "unfair economic advantage." It was complete bullshit, but it was clearly based in large part on economics. The whole "limousine liberal" meme is a creature economic divisiveness (e.g., when you hear nonsense like "the 'limousine liberals' can afford to cry over the lost habitat of the blind tit mouse, but I'm worried about losing my job," this is unequivocally an economically populist right-wing meme).

Look at the Reagan-Dukakis campaign (and to a degree, the Bush-Kerry campaign). There is a strong right-wing populism at work in those campaigns, with "plain-spoken Reagan" and "good guy to have a beer and talk baseball with" Bush pitted against "Massachusetts Liberals." Of course, those images were untrue, but they were carefully created and rigorously perpetuated and brutally effective.

I like an Edwards-Guiliani or an Edwards-Romney match up in the South, where this sort of populism may well work to our advantage due to the very same prejudices against "New York City and Massachusetts Liberals" which the Repubs have so carefully fed and nurtured over the past decades.

[Dr Fate]

34. So people are going to rise up against Edwards and stick up for their bosses?

"Take THAT Edwards! I dont need your stinking "living wage" or your healthcare- I LOVE my boss-LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!"

I think your view is off base- look at the polls- you like polls & focus groups, right? The average worker is discontent with their job, employer, benefits and wages.

Very few people will view a criticism of corporate greed as an attack on themselves.

[SaveElmer]

37. History says otherwise...

If a populist movement was going to take power it would have occurred in the 1930's...but did not...

Franklin Roosevelt was attacked from the left throughout the 1930's...

Huey Long, Father Coughlin attacked him as too conservative...

[Dr Fate]

47. Riiiight- so in the 30's, everyone sided with and loved their employers & Big Biz, just like now.

I forgot about that part- no wonder Herbert Hoover won 4 elections in a row.

[azurnoir]

4. Now he could

it always has to come too "disenfranchised" means you too, before the public admits anything is wrong.

[eagler]

5. He started too early,by election he'll seem old and used

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. When you consider that it takes two years for most of the information

that we read on the liberal blogs, to filter into the mainstream press, I'd say that his timing will be just fine.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. I think Edwards will have a real chance

as for a populaist party or person never being elected? How about the New Deal. Populaism is how most of our Southern and Western Democrats won the last election.

[demnan]

9. A subtle nasty article

Edwards has always been out there on poverty issues. They act like he's just taking this on now.

By the way, I'm going to a fund raiser for Edwards next week (I'm volunteering to help out, not making a massive contribution).

I've met Edwards and I can tell you when he enters a room his eyes don't seek out the most wealthy influential person in the room first. He's a real deal.

[BayCityProgressive]

11. The corporate

press will always attack anything based ont he people rather than corporate greed. Edwards is to corporations a garlic is to vampires.

[Clark2008]

19. He has NOT "always" been there on poverty issues!

He didn't do a DAMN thing as senator for the poor. NOTHING.

This "poverty" platform began when he was running in 2003/2004. It seemed to garner some media attention for him so he stuck with it.

He's really not done all that much for the poor.

I have met him, too, and he's NOT any real deal I'd care to vote for.

[SOS]

12. Absolutely

A Wall Street vs. Main Street candidate could win the nomination and the White House.
People are fed up with 25% credit card interest, sub prime vultures, $200 prescriptions, outsourced manufacturing jobs and all the rest.
In today's Times we read that home foreclosures are skyrocketing in Ohio due to the destruction of the manufacturing base.
People will forget about the gay marriage canard, when the repo man is moving them into the gutter.

While TV presents only the Hillary/Obama theater, Edwards is out there building his support.

Of course Edwards has a huge dilemma...
How do you slam the greedy Wall Street parasites, while accepting their corporate campaign cash?

[wyldwolf]

13. Well, he will certainly convince people he can win...

..and I'm not saying he can't, but populism, in the form most on DU think of it, is much more complicated than the "us" vs. "then" mentality.

I can't recall one true populist candidate who has won anything of note when the populist message was the overriding issue of the day.

[loyalsister]

14. Many of us are sick of it!

One side wants to blame disenfranchised people for their predicament.
The other side wants to be the heroic rescuer.
Many people who are in the middle of it don't want to even be the football in this political game.

[wyldwolf]

15. good post. Edward's "populism" sounds like Gore's "populism."

[loyalsister]

17. Thanks

Personally, I am more interested in recognition of equality across the board.
There is nuance to be understood for one particular population, but it is something that we need to address ASAP.

When it comes to issues of required health care, there is cost involved to level the playing field. That applies to people who have disabilities. There is an increase in that population as baby boomers age and with returning veterans.

Once the tools are available, it is more likely that they can join the majority competition.
It's very simple, but it is consistantly framed with a low expectations and a victimization element that seem to erode the goal.

I have had conversations with Black friends who have similar concerns related to their community.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Edwards is a good candidate, but ultimately his populist

message won't resonate--not as long as the middle class (where most of us probably are, if we're typing on a computer) can have two cars, a house in the 'burbs, DVD player, and piano lessons for the kiddies. There is a vague sense that we're all getting screwed by big business and lobbyists and rich exec's, but it's not going to be a compelling enough force to make him leap to the head of the pack, especially when Obama and Hillary can always pick up that mantle when they so choose. And championing the poor and disenfranchised? Not a vote-getter, unless they are somehow a powerful lobby that I'm not aware of! People vote for THEIR interests, not for the interests of those beneath them. The 'Pugs love Rudy BECAUSE he chased out the "riff-raff". Sympathy for the poor is a worthy sentiment and a standard Dem position, but again, not a vote-getter.

[Clark2008]

18. No.

People know he's not a real populist.

He wasn't POOR (he was upper middle class).

He didn't do a damn thing FOR the POOR when he was a senator (but he did help the banking industry).

I'm sorry - very little substance there for me and a lot of other Southern and mid-Westerners to sink our teeth into.

[AshevilleGuy]

59. Here we go again

We KNOW you hate him. Can't you let it go????

[venable]

64. Clark 2008. please stop this upper middle class stuff

about Edwards life. It simply is not true, no matter how many times you and a couple of others say so.

He grew up lower class, by any reasonable standard of measurement.

He knew only others in that same, desperate condition, trying to make ends meet week by week.

How many upper middle class families had nobody, EVER, go to college?

How many upper middle class moms had postal routes?

this is absurd. stop it, please.

[AshevilleGuy]

66. In addition to that, no middle upper class father

would work in a cotton mill if he could possibly avoid it. John's dad might have worked up to foreman or whatever, but it is still a sad fact that cotton mills are really unpleasant places to work. "Upper middle class" implies choice of employment; few would choose a cotton mill.

[NDP]

21. If the us and the them are clearly defined, then yes

[Czolgosz]

26. If the "us" is 95% of us and the "them" is 5% of us, asking more from those who have reaped the most

from our society and from those who has benefitted from windfall success in order to build a better society for everyone (i.e., 100% of is) is a massage than can win.

In John Edwards's talk about "Two Americas" - he doesn't want to creat a war between the two Americas. Edwards wants to unite the two Americas in the pursuit of one better America.

[Dr Fate]

28. No- he cant. But that is not really his pitch.

Note that the article does not provide a single quote from Edwards that is even close to an "Us vs. them" mentality.

And who would the "them" be anyway? Some multi-national corporation? A political lobbying firm? Edwards has never targeted individual citizens or classes of citizens as someone he is adverse to.

He seems to be saying that when you help the poor, it lifts up everyone and strengthens the nation as a whole.

[OHdem10]

58. As long as Democrats are ready to lie down and roll over

every time the Republicans or Media Supporing Republicans
whines "'class warfare" not a single Democrat can stand
up for the "little guy". As long as Dems permit Republicans
to assuage their guilt by crying fowl if the word populism
populist is used, no one can win carrying such a message.

In other words, Be a Big Business , Corporate Democrat
and everyone will be happy.If not, prepare for attacks
defend yourself proudly.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. Yes, but he is one of THEM

He has the argument framed correctly, but his history shows he has been on the other side of the fight, so some of US would never cast a vote for one of THEM.

[Dr Fate]

62. FDR was "one of them" too. So are the Kennedys. So is Kerry. Gore. I call B.S. n/t

n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

65. Different....

Kerry IS one of them, but FDR and Kennedy are not. I am judging not by their financial position in life, but by their ACTIONS.

When push came to shove, Kerry and Edwards decided it was more important to be seen as one of them, than risk potential unpopularity and as a result hundreds of thousands of people are dead.

Edwards voted for the IWR, against the LEvin amemdment, for the Bankrupcy bill of 2001, for the energy policy and FOR defunding renewable and solar in 1999. You can see his whole record and learn how he is one of THEM right here (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm)

So, yes, us vs them, but he is clearly one of THEM.

[GreenArrow]

68. if he isn't one of "them"

he has no chance.