Is John Edwards our Ronald Reagan?

[katieforeman]

We've spent a lot of time debating which candidate is the most electable in the general election. I believe that candidate is John Edwards. However, I also think that John Edwards is uniquely qualified to advance the progressive agenda over the next generation. Here's why:

1.) With his Two America's speech John Edwards articulates a coherent philosophy of governing. All of his policies serve the same common goal of acheiving opportunity for everyone and making sure the American Dream is within the reach of every person in this country.

Ronald Reagan gave his party the gift of vision and belief. John Edwards is doing the same thing for Democrats.

2.) John Edwards talks about poverty and race in moral terms. He gives people something to believe in larger than themselves. For too long Republicans have been the only party willing to engage in politics on moral terms. Edwards redefines the moral life of this country in a way that favors progressive causes.

3.) John Edwards inspires people. Like Kennedy and FDR before him, John Edwards peddles hope not fear. John Edwards bases his politics on the belief that poverty and racial division are not inevitable. Together we can create One America for everyone.

4.) Like FDR, Edwards lets people know that someone in leadership really cares about them and understands their problems.

5.) John Edwards' ability to communicate with ordinary Americans will make him much more effective at using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to accomplish a progressive agenda.

6.) John Edwards positive, optimistic agenda will make it easier for him to improve the tone in Washington. He's not engaging Republicans in the politics of personal destruction. He's not perpetuating the ugliness in Washington D.C.

7.) John Edwards message is future oriented. Let's not re-engage in past battles. Let's move our agenda forward instead of settling old scores.

[Padraig18]

1. Good post!

:dem:

[katieforeman]

2. Thanks

[Skwmom]

3. Is this progressive?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0316-03.htm. “ I've never seen a bill that was so one-sided. The cries, claims and concerns of vulnerable Americans who have suffered a financial emergency have been drowned out by the political might of the credit card industry.“ Former Dem. Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum now head of Consumer Federation of America, commenting on the Credit Card/Banking Industry's Bankruptcy 'Reform, which John Edwards voted to support.

“ Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk.” (A Populist Make-Over Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

[DjTj]

7. This is the umpteenth time this has been brought up:

...and for the umpteenth time, here's the full story:

quoting from AP in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=365312

Edwards voted for the Senate version of the bill, but there's more to the story.

Edwards joined most Democrats, including Kerry, Schumer, Wellstone, etc. in attaching an amendment, authored by Wellstone himself, that made the Senate version much harsher on the banking industry and easier on individual debtors. At that point, it became a judgment call whether to vote for the bill or against it since voting for it, with the amendment, would force the bill to conference and increase the likelihood that it would die in conference or that conference would produce a version more favorable to individuals than it otherwise would have been. The odds of this were excellent since Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin were among the Democratic conferees. The banking industry and corporate interests hated this version, by the way.

And, yes, Kerry, Wellstone and 14 other Democrats voted against final passage. But all of the other Democrats, including Clinton, Cleland and Edwards, voted for final passage, largely because they knew that the version the Dems had forced would probably eventually scuttle the bill. And it has. The bill died at the end of the 107th Congress.

It's important to know all of the facts before condemning anyone for one particular vote. Senate procedure and strategy is extremely complicated and just looking at a yea or nay does not always tell the story. That's why it is sometimes misleading to try to characterize anyone's motives or views just by looking at one vote.

[Skwmom]

40. What about the banking law bill? e/o/m

[arewethereyet]

15. if people can improve their lot in life, this ceases to become a problem

cause/effect symptom/cure

[DjTj]

4. On C-SPAN just now,

The NAACP Savannah President said, "It's a message that comes from his soul."

[katieforeman]

5. I like that.

[citizen snips]

6. I agree.

Edwards was also was the son of a mill worker and the first in his family to go to college.

he also fought for families who were victims of medical malpractice when he was a trial lawyer.

[Bill of Rights]

36. Daddy Edwards

was a mill manager. He didn't do backbreaking work.

[displacedtexan]

8. Edwards is good on domestic issues.

Don't get me wrong here, but I don't think JE can get those idiotic swing voters who straddle the fence until election day.

JE needs foreign policy experience as well as domestic.

I cringed when JE didn't have enough depth to answer that early debate question about the DOMA.

I need a prez who doesn't have to be tutored on the job... or even on the campaign trail.

[katieforeman]

9. I really think Edwards has the right amount of experience to be elected

and to do a good job as president.

1.) Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Reagan, Clinton, Carter, or George W. Bush when they were elected. Edwards has been on the Sneate Select Committee on Intelligence. He has travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan nd met with leaders there. Remember Bush couldn't name the President of Pakistan during the 2000 election.

2.) Has George W. Bush gotten better with expereince? Bush technically has more experience as commander- and- cheif than Edwards or Kerry. I don't think that means Bush would be a better President.

The problem with George W. Bush is not his lack of experience when he came into office. The problem with George W. Bush is his lack of integrity, and judgement, not to mention his arrogance and intellectual laziness.

I think Edwards, unlike Bush, is extremely intelligent and has good judgement and integrity. I think these are the qualities necessary to be a good Commander- and -Cheif.

3.) Military experience doesn't translate into electable. Dole was a war hero. Max Cleland was a war hero. Clinton and Reagan had no military experience and they were elected twice.

In fact experience in elected office doesn't necessarily equal electable either. If experience really mattered Arnold wouldn't be gov of CA and Gore would have won in a landslide.

I like Edwards and Kerry too but I really think Edwards is the one who can win.

[disenfranchised]

11. Just to add

When you talk about military experience, Bush beat McCain. Who's a bigger war hero than McCain?

Gray Davis also fought in Vietnam.

[katieforeman]

12. Thanks disenfranchised.

I didn't know that Davis fought in Vietnam.

I think I remember that Dukakis fought in Korea. Do you know if that is true.

I'll be sure to add the McCain and Davis examples to future posts.

[mlawson]

17. I don't think Dukakis was a veteran.

Might be wrong, but I really don't think he was. Otherwise, he could have had more to say to Poppy about that sort of thing.

[Armstead]

30. Dukakis was in the Army in Korea

He wasn;t there during the war, but he did serve in Korea

[katieforeman]

32. Thanks.

[mlawson]

16. "Experience" is a subjective measure, at best.

How much experience is enough?? Depends upon how quickly the person learns, how they interpret what happens to them and what they are doing in response. It depends upon the 'time' this experience occurs, as well. Four years in Congress during a war or crisis is quite different than the same period of time during a quiet time when not much is going on.

Lincoln had all of TWO (2) years in the House (1847-49), and that was IT!!! The rest of the time, he was a trial lawyer!! :o

[katieforeman]

10. Just one more point.

I'm from OH and I've had independents and Republicans tell me they like John Edwards. He won this group of voters in WI. I really worry that Kerry's very long voting record will not play well in the Midwest.

[Carolina]

22. Hi katie

I'm in SC and that's what I hear too: they like John Edwards.

At the end of the day, we know record and experience matter
but they often take a back seat to likeability! Edwards has it, Kerry doesn't.

Good post :kick:

[katieforeman]

25. Thanks again Carolina

[jpgray]

13. You mean he'll lose his first primary? :-)

Just kidding. It's too soon to tell right now, but he is a good speaker and I agree with some of his positions.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. In image and approach, yes, but in involvement, he's much better

Yes, his is an affirmation of the American System, saying that it's been subverted but is inherently sound. This is uncannily like the morning in America horseshit, and it does play. Truly, I feel that he believes this, and I do too: his point that he was the beneficiary of class-mobility that is getting less and less possible with the goodies doled out to the rich and the dwindling opportunities for the have-nots.

He isn't just a facile figurehead with vague broad-strokes ideas that are bolstered by a cabal of powerful apparatchiks like Reagan was, though, he is very methodical and mechanistic; one can see that from the approach of his PDF on the website. The very idea of laying out a detailed platform shows eminent practicality, but when going through it, it prioritizes well and pays for itself. His is a very complex synthesis of idealism and pragmatism, and it's driven by an extraordinary heart and mind.

Yes, the analogy is good.

[katieforeman]

26. You're right. Edwards is definitley much better.

[rhino47]

18. Great post !

:kick:

[katieforeman]

27. Thanks

[Guava Jelly]

19. hope hes not reagan

trickle down sucked :)

[mlawson]

20. Oh, "supply side" economics??

No, Edwards isn't for that. None of our guys are, so far as I know.

[Carolina]

21. love your signature line

:hi:

[mlawson]

24. Why, thank you!!

It occurred to me a few days ago, while driving in heavy traffic. I was fretting, as usual.

[katieforeman]

29. He's definitely not Reagan on substance.

In fact he's the exact opposite.

However, we are still dealing with a generation of Republicans inspired by Reagan. After Edwards, Republicans will be dealing with a generation inspired by progressive ideals.

[dogman]

23. Reagan actually had some qualifications for the job.

He was still one of the most misrable Presidents in my lifetime so may be there is something there.

[katieforeman]

31. We agree that Reagan was terrible in terms of policies.

However, Reagan did manage to inspire a generation of Republicans because he had a vision. Edwards will inspire a generation of Democrats with his vision.

[dogman]

33. I haven't been able to sit through the infomercial.

Where is the inspiration? What vision? This job requires leadership. I have yet to see any signs of leadership. Platitudes are not going to resolve our problems. He has followed the Bush agenda to closely for my tastes. People think he's a common man? He isn't close. He has done well for himself because he can sell himself. That is what he has in common with Reagan.

[katieforeman]

34. He has done well by himself by fighting and winning on behalf of ordinary

Americans.

See what people think of Kerry's leadership when the Republicans are done attacking his record.

[dogman]

39. Exactly, selling himself to the jury.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying I'm not buying what he's selling now. It will be harder for the Republicans to attack Edwards because he has agreed with them so much. But don't fool yourself into thinking they won't convince people they cannot risk the security of the country to some one with no experience. this country does not need a salesman it needs a leader. Kerry's not my first choice but at this point he is the only choice other than four more years of Bush.

[JPJones]

28. He's our Richie Rich n/t

[MrSlayer]

35. No, I think Edwards would be more than a puppet.

Which is all Reagan was.

[Deja Q]

37. I'm confused

Reagan was ultra-conservative and the father of the utterly vile neo-conservative. He essentially lied through his false teeth.

A "Reagan equivalent" to a DFL'er would have to be opposite on every issue. Kucinich is such a person. In that perspective, at least.

Forgive me, I'm missing your point. :-(

[katieforeman]

38. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Under my first point I specify that Reagan defined a positive vison that inspired a generation of Republicans. I think Edwards articulates a progressive vision that could inspire a generation of Democrats.

I disagree with reagan on everything, but he know how to inspire. We're still dealing with Reagan's philosophical legacy.