How is Edwards going to "Fight" for us as he promises? What weapons will he use?

[FrenchieCat]

So many folks here seem to believe that Edwards is the "fighter"....and that he is the only who will stand up and fight for us.

And so my question is, how exactly as Edwards proposed to fight for us. How will he get accomplished all that he says he will accomplish? What are the specifics to his plan of action?

[AndyA]

1. Have you spent any time at the John Edwards website?

There is a lot there, and it will answer most of your questions. It is broken down by various issues, so be sure to click the various links on that page.

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

[FrenchieCat]

2. I ask, because many here say that Obama doesn't do specifics.....

but he has very detailed issue pages on a whole slew of issues.

Doesn't John Edwards have specifics that can be articulated....or is he in the same position as Obama....in that one has to go to his website to see his policy papers?

Are Edwards' policy papers a declaration of war? Because Edwards say he will not negotiate. And that he will take away the Corporate powers, etc....So how does he differ from the others apart from policy papers that he will have to get through congress? How he will take away power and fight? Can he get those things done via executive power or something?

[Selatius]

3. Neither Obama or Edwards can do anything without a Dem congress.

Without that, it's all rhetoric from the both of them, but historically speaking, the president is able to largely pass his agenda if congress is controlled by the same party. The big example was FDR. For a while, he had to fight more conservative Dixiecrat Dems who controlled congress in terms of instituting the New Deal. Many of the "Alphabet Soup" programs FDR instituted were done simply by executive order. One of the bigger examples was the WPA, which employed millions at its height.

[FrenchieCat]

8. So based on what I saw yesterday, it appears that one of the difference

is that Obama has greater strength at the Bully Pulpit. He was able to get voters to turn out for him. That took leadership....and in this society, the ballot box is how one institutes changes.

[Selatius]

16. That has yet to be seen. Obama outspent Hillary and Edwards both.

Hillary spent 7.2 million in TV ads. Edwards spent only 3.2 million in TV ads. Obama? He spent 9 million, but given that, we would think that Obama and Hillary would completely blast apart Edwards, but Edwards has successfully differentiated himself from others by adopting the old-style economic populist message that older Dems like FDR/Truman built their campaigns upon, and his 30 percent came despite the monetary shortfall. Obama found a niche, but the same can be said for Edwards and Hillary. Hillary supporters are hard core, the least likely to shift to anyone else. Obama's from what I've seen, has attracted a lot of people who may still yet shift to either Edwards or Hillary. They aren't as committed as with Hillary's supporters. If Edwards didn't have a money issue going into Iowa, he likely would've received a wider audience with Iowan voters and potentially shaved some votes from Obama more than Hillary.

[FrenchieCat]

28. So Edwards camped out in Iowa since 2003 doesn't count?

The fact that Edwards already ran in Iowa, doesn't count?
The fact that Edwards was the Veep Nominee in 2004 doesn't count?

Only money counts?

Oh...OK.

[Selatius]

31. People have short memories, from what I've seen.

In this age of infotainment, I wouldn't expect much else.

[FrenchieCat]

So you are saying that the Democrats in Iowa forgot who

John Edwards was...because they didn't see a lot of ads for him on TeeVee this time around?

Meanwhile Obama has been on the scene for a much smaller percentage of the time that Edwards spent there.

You don't think that folks in Iowa saw candidates firsthand oftentimes....the ones that ended up caucusing, I mean?

[loudsue]

60. Yep. He recruited record numbers of republicans to vote for him to keep Hillary out.

That's quite an accomplishment.

[Hutzpa]

61. I thought its about uniting, not dividing n/t

[AndyA]

10. From Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-closing-argument-for-_b_79413.html

Obama's political strategy is quite consistent with such financial backers. One of his big applause lines is "The insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table...they just can't buy all the chairs."

John Edwards responds that "some people argue that we're going to sit at the table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it's a complete fantasy; it will never happen." If Obama thinks the way to bring change to Washington is for a bunch of insiders to sit around the table with the corporate special interests, he is dreaming. These special interests are all about using their money and power to manipulate the government to increase their bottom lines. Insurance companies and drug companies are not interested in universal health care for all Americans. Big energy companies are not interested in developing alternative fuels, capping greenhouse gases, or ending America's reliance on oil. Hedge fund managers are not interested in having their billion dollar incomes taxed at a marginal rate of 28% like the wage income of the companies they invest in, instead of at the special rate of 15%. Edwards will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to mobilize the American people to take on these special interests in the name of the public good. He is the most progressive major party candidate since Bobby Kennedy, perhaps since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Moreover, John Edwards has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in November and bringing with him large Democratic majorities in the House and particularly the Senate which will be necessary to bring fundamental change. While no single poll is decisive, when one looks at polls taken over the past nine months matching Edwards against the various potential Republican nominees, Edwards consistently wins by the highest margins of any Democrat and virtually never loses. Clinton often loses in match-ups against McCain and Giuliani (as does Obama, but somewhat less often), and when she wins, it is by smaller margins than Edwards. According to a recent CNN poll, "Edwards is the most electable Democrat. Against McCain, Edwards is slightly ahead in terms of electoral votes. Clinton is way behind."

John will have a Democratic Congress backing him, changes will happen. He is not going to allow "business as usual" with the same old players the way the others will. John will bring change, the others can't because they have compromised themselves by taking money from the big corporations who are responsible for the mess we're in now.

[FrenchieCat]

17. So Edwards will sit at the table and negotiate, with the Insurance Co.,

they just can't have all of the chairs? That is supposed to be "specific" fighting weapon? To me, it just sounds like Edwards is "talking" about what he will do "if he can"......which is what they all will do. The question is who can get a mandate and then working from a place of strength, be able to persuade via a strong position? Obama seems more effective at cultivating support via leadership without all of the bravado. Obama is the one who got those folks out to caucus on a freezing January eve.....That takes leadership and persuasion.

Obama has never said that only corporate interest and insiders would be sitting at his table...and I don't see anything in his past that says that is what he would do.

One has to at least recall that Obama called the war that Edwards co-sponsored DUMB....he didn't sit at a table with the MIC.....so why would he now sell out? How is that arrived at? Because he doesn't make corporate interest complete enemies? How can one persuade no negotiation is to take place. How real is that notion?

and because, you see.....Obama has a lot of the same proposals.

I believe that they would both fight, just in a different manner. I also believe that Edwards method of fighting is easier said than done.

[rockymountaindem]

21. Obama said that line

Not Edwards

[FrenchieCat]

23. said what line?

Obama's political strategy is quite consistent with such financial backers. One of his big applause lines is "The insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table...they just can't buy all the chairs."


Edwards said the same exact thing in his Charlie Rose interview. listen at about 19:50....Edwards will sit them at the table too.....with a caveat too.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/video-john-edwards-on-charlie-rose-agrees-with-obama-on-corporations-voices-should-be-heard/

[rockymountaindem]

40. The line you quoted n/t

[Wizard777]

4. Will he give Bush & Cheney a fair trial before executing them? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

5. Wait, are you asking if Edwards is going to back up his words with actions?

I don't think that's really his "thing."

[kentuck]

6. He believes he can use the bully pulpit...

and put pressure on the Congress directly thru the people. As when he made his comment about health coverage for Congressmen.

[FrenchieCat]

13. But Obama is the one that has actually turned his "talk" about Bully Pulpit

into action, via the ballot box. Iowa increased voter turn out by 118,000 over 2004, when Edwards also ran.

If Edwards can't turn out the vote in the manner that Obama did, how does that make him more effective or even more specific than Obama in instituting change?

Obama and Edwards clearly agree that this is how change is instituted.....

Yet folks are saying that Edwards is more specific on "fighting"... While Obama only offers platitudes....although Obama has evidenced his effectiveness at the bully pulpit/organizing support for his cause, and Edwards, not so much.

[kentuck]

35. That means Obama is very good...

Not that Edwards is very bad. :-)

[PVnRT]

39. So, Obama alone is responsible for doubling Dem turnout?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with Iraq, or the economy, or anything else.

And how is he effective with a "bully pulpit" by getting people to vote for him? That's not what a bully pulpit does.

[FrenchieCat]

44. I don't know...but I do know that Obama won, and that Edwards ran last

time, and only 1/2 of the number showed up then. That would tell me that yes, Obama turned out the vote.....cause an 8 point win is not something to turn one's nose about.

It was clearly stated that a larger turn out would increase Obama's win. So why wouldn't it be Obama that would encourage all of those new caucus goers to show up?

[readmoreoften]

7. All the "weapons" that Bush uses to fight us:

Vetoes of bad legislation.
Extremely progressive cabinet appointments that piss off corporatists-- i.e. Restoring the NLRB to PRO-LABOR.
Extremely progressive judicial appointments that piss of corporatists

Those are the specific things someone who FIGHTS would be expected to do.

What would someone who believes in UNITY do?

Not veto bad legislation because it would make people mad.
Moderate cabinet appointments that appease big business and disempower unions (but a little less so than Bush)
Moderate judicial appointments who appease the right.

[FrenchieCat]

36. But, but, but...I thought that Edwards believed in restricting existing

executive power, now broadening it.....or is that the case?

If he's gonna do like Bush, why is that a good thing? Why would this country want more of that? :shrug:

[readmoreoften]

49. But, but, ALL PRESIDENTS APPOINT JUDGES. That's not "broadening" powers. It's using them.

No president isn't going to use the rightful power they're given by the office. You're confusing this with Bush's "signing statements".

Just GIVE UP will you.

[mmonk]

9. Doesn't appear Obama people want Edwards supporters

if there is a problem with the Edwards campaign in future primaries.

[FrenchieCat]

14. It depends on what you are looking at.....

I've seen many posts here last night and today....and there are plenty of Edwards supporters who have plenty to say. As an Obama supporters, so do I. Is there a problem here?

[mmonk]

38. Well the position of president and effective leadership depends on the same things

for any candidate and what they may or may not try to do. Edwards is not less genuine by saying he will try to fight the special interests than those that say they will bring about change by sitting down at the table with the speacial interests and getting a "compromise".

[FrenchieCat]

46. I agree.....but I am told that Edwards is the one that could institute

change, Obama...not so much.

And Edwards does say that Corporate interest should have a voice too.

Check here for the video on that:
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/video-john-edwards-on-charlie-rose-agrees-with-obama-on-corporations-voices-should-be-heard/

[mmonk]

48. I don't need the video. I think it has to do with degrees.

Some things may require no compromise or negotiation. Do the corporations and Republicans really compromise? I surely haven't noticed. It's been a one way street and we've all been run over. Best of luck throughout the primaries.

[hfojvt]

11. if he wins big and also increases Democratic control of Congress

as seems likely, then he will have a mandate for enacting some of his proposals. Also, it is important to say the right things, to have the determination to fight for the poor versus Obama's determination to be a uniter or Clinton's determination to "lead" and to defend the "middle class" which she thinks includes people who make $110,000 a year.

[FrenchieCat]

15. It is Obama that, thus far, appears to be calvanizing voters

which is what one needs to "win" big to get a mandate. They both agree that this is the way to go about gaining a mandate in order to enact proposals....but DU Edwards supporters seem to think that it is Edwards who knows how to fight....although it is Obama that seems to know what to do to get to where you need to be to win a fight.

When has being a peacemaker to unite for the greater good of the nation been a bad choice compared to leading a revolution that won't be televised? Why is Edwards "fight" message believed to be so much more specific than Obama speaking softly but carrying a big stick called ballot box mandate? :shrug:

[readmoreoften]

41. If Obama is elected on being bipartisan, his mandate will be to be a bipartisan.

That means he will have to tiptoe around Republicans and concede to them enough to get re-elected.

His health insurance backers will want to make sure he doesn't mess with the system too much.
His evangelical base will want to make sure LGBT people make no real gains or they will abandon them.
The rich republicans will demand that he not be *too* pro-labor.

John Edwards is running on fighting MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, which benefit only 1% of Americans. He will naturally unite Americans without having to PANDER. How? Because working-class and poor evangelicals don't like multinational corporations either. That's why Huckabee is so popular with them. They want jobs and good wages and freedom from debt just like we do. They are very concerned about jobs leaving America and about the government seizing farmland to build toll roads that take money out of the pockets of Americans. In Texas, there is a mega toll road being build by a Spanish corporation that is going to put money back into the economy of Spain, take money out of Texans hands, and serve as a trucking highway to aid NAFTA. Do you think conservatives want that?

Edwards will unify the nation because he has a mandate that 99% of Americans can relate to, a mandate that directly benefits them. Edwards isn't anti-conservative, he's anti-corporatism. It's an enormous difference.

Unfortunately, you can't fight corporations and be owned by them. Your candidate is owned by corporate interest. And that's who he will have to represent if he wants a 2nd term in office. My candidate will not win because the corrupt MSM will favor who the corporate owners of MSM tell them to favor.

Obama does not have the power to unite this country with his charm and personality. There are real issues. Real life and death issues.




And it's galvanizing, not calvanizing.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Obama is running on uniting Americans to work toward the common good of this nation.....

and he does talk about corporate powers and their abuse, and how he would exert control over them.

All one has to do is listen to Obama's speech to know that he talks about quite a few if not all of the sames things that Edwards talks about.....although Obama also talks about Iraq...which Edwards didn't mention...in his speech last night, anyways.

Thanks. English is my 2nd language, and I rarely do spell checks.

[readmoreoften]

50. Edwards talked at length on Iraq on ABC the night before the caucus.

His clear position is total withdrawal within 9 months. He said there is no military solution and we must pull out and bring the troops home.

I'm sure Obama will curb some corporate abuse, but in order to really make a serious change, he will have to actually knock heads with the elected Republicans and alienate them. They are largely paid-off shills making big bucks to sell America to the highest bidder.

You write very well for an ESL writer. (I'm assuming French is your first language?)

[FrenchieCat]

53. It is very possible that Obama will knock heads with a smile on his face.....

Speaking softly carrying a big stick is what we have wanted in or foreign relations....not bullying and war tactics......and if we think that those tactics of "Negotiating" would work dealing with dictators and countries that would prefer to see our downfall if it happened, why would we want to be Bushlike at home. The art of politics is persuasion.

[Blackhatjack]

42. First, to 'calvinize' is to inject a religious view. 'galvanize' is to reinvigorate, 'calvanize'???

You absolutely cannot 'negotiate' with corporate interests in a way that will result in them 'giving away' their power.

You also cannot 'take the money of corporate interests' and not be adversely influenced in trying to negotiate with those same corporate interests to obtain results in the public's best interests.

Obama's problem would be not carrying a stick at all.

[readmoreoften]

52. Yes corporations will not give away their power unless you seize it, and that's incredibly difficult

And thus requires fighting.

I learned that standing on a picket line for 6 months fighting a non-profit employer that paid millions upon millions of dollars to smear workers all so they didn't have to put their promises in writing. There was no money to be lost, only power. They were ruthless, vicious, cruel pathological liars. And this was a not-for-profit business (of course the trustees of the corporation were making a killing...)

You must fight. Or you die. It's really that simple.

[hfojvt]

51. he's galvanizing some donors and Illinois college students

He took 38% of 220,588 caucus goers in Iowa and you call that galvanizing? His margin of victory over Edwards was 17,647. In 2004, Kerry/Edwards got 741,000 votes in Iowa. Right now the media and Oprah are supporting Obama as part of a two person race while they ignore Edwards, the millionaire lawyer. As the nominee Edwards will get much more attention.

I like Obama much better than Clinton, but I do not find his bipartisan rhetoric or his Horatio Alger personal story to be very inspiring. What Obama seems to not realize is that it is their side that needs to make peace, not ours. There is bitter partisanship because of bombastic Gingrich and Limbaugh attacks on liberals not because of bombastic Daschle and Franken attacks on conservatives. A compromise or a peace reached by doing things their way is not a peace worth having any more than surrender is the same as victory.

[unc70]

64. "calvanizing voters" sounds like predestination / inevitability !

I personally prefer free will. :)

[HeraldSquare212]

37. I only heard Edwards mentioning middle class last night nt

[Squatch]

12. Tasers.

[FrenchieCat]

18. LOL! n/t

[bigtree]

19. bully pulpit

and his resolve

[alfredo]

20. A good lawyer does his homework. He studies all aspects and never

goes in a direction unless he is sure of his footing. When he uses the bully pulpit he will have a good case to present to the "jury." He never makes a statement he can't back up with proof. He never asks a question without already knowing the answer. He uses reason to build his case, then uses the facts and the passion of his convictions to sell his case.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Obama is a lawyer too........

and looking at his organizational skill thus far, it seems that he is most effective at being a leader that folks want to support.

[alfredo]

32. Oh sure. His early training as a community organizer could be

what puts him over the top. I didn't mention Obama because this topic was about Edwards.

[Blackhatjack]

22. Obama is going to find it hard to replicate his Iowa results in states with Primaries NOT Caucuses..

Unless Obama figures out a way to register huge numbers of first time voters, and get lots of voters to switch party registrations to vote for him, he will find it hard to replicate the same results he enjoyed in Iowa in states which have Primaries NOT caucuses.

AS to the disingenuous OP topic, a President has tremendous power to advance policy and influence legislation because he is the head of the Executive Branch of Government. The weapons he can use to 'fight' for people and their interests have been on display for over 7 years by merely looking at GW Bush's Administration.

THe power to appoint, the power to hire and fire members of the ADministration, the power to issue executive orders, the power over budget expenditures, etc. THe list goes on and on, but I doubt FrenchieCat could be so ignorant of how our government works --and this is just another OP intended to turn into flamebait.

[PVnRT]

24. Man, you Obama supporters are doing your best to drive in a wedge, aren't you?

[salin]

25. it appears that "camps" are doing it to each other all over these boards.

Almost makes the memory of 03-04 as a walk in the park.

[FrenchieCat]

27. By asking questions?

I didn't know that an Obama supporter couldn't ask about this great specific "fight" that Edwards keeps referring to? Didn't know we were supposed to only allow other candidate supporters to question everything. I'm sorry that I'm apparently out of line. Have you gone into the many threads that talk about obama's platitudes and asked them if they are trying to drive a wedge?

[Blackhatjack]

30. I had no idea you were so 'uninformed' about the candidates' relative positions. LOL

You are too transparent in your attacks. But hey, that only lasts so long before people recognize your true motives.

[Zodiak]

62. So true

Many DUers do this....whether it is primary season or not, and they are well-known to those of us that have been here a while. Personally, I think it is a waste of time when a person's agenda is so transparent.

[PVnRT]

33. Uh-huh. "Asking questions."

Whatever, chief. Quit crying whenever someone challenges you on this transparent bullshit.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Do you have a problem with me asking questions?

Did I call John Edwards out of name or something?
Is asking a pertinent question really to be labeled as bullshit based on who asks the question?

or the Edwards threads only supposed to be generated by Edwards supporters? and questions screened so that only friendly sources can discuss the issue asked about? Are only softball questions allowed, or can I ask the question that I did?

Many Edwards supporter apparently believe that Edwards is specific, while Obama is not. I read that over and over again, before, yesterday, and today. I listened to Edwards' speech last night, and he wasn't anymore specific than was Obama...the only difference is that Edwards used the word "fight" a lot....but offered very few specifics on how this fight would actually yield solutions. He has said that other methods wouldn't work, but I haven't heard him go into how his method would work better.

A debate takes place when there is an issue...and there is. Bullshit is when those who don't seem to have an answer starts calling out the one posing the question. How does that help John Edwards? Wouldn't a cogent thorough answer do the trick instead and also inform others who are currently shopping for a candidate (Dodd, Biden)? I mean, since John is so specific and all according to his supporters, it shouldn't be too hard to really differenciate between two approaches and be able to logically rationalize why one approach would work better than the other, and how that approach would actually get the job done.

[robbedvoter]

29. Um, the same way he fought for us in 2004? "This time every vote will be counted"

His supporters keep saying how it was "dangerous" to oppose war in 1993, and how "DK should be happy he made it "safe"" for "others" to tackle progressive issues in campaigns....It's a good thing courage is not needed to "fight for us" - right?

[PVnRT]

34. 1993? Somalia?

[robbedvoter]

45. If that was supposed to be a jab at Hillary - for Poppy's lame duck war -

it's a very poor one - for many reasons, including the fact that I am in no way her supporter.

[robbedvoter]

58. Oops! 2003!

[Fermezlabush]

54. Excellent question. Not much fighting in the senate - not for us that is

[Fading Captain]

55. By simply using the rhetoric he uses

He could shake up America.

America has not heard this kind of talk from a serious presidential candidate in years.

[FrenchieCat]

57. So now I understand. Obama is criticized for not using specifics

in his speeches about I'm not sure what.....but that has been said everywhere here on DU, in particular by Edwards supporters.

But now, Rethorics is his weapon?

My, my. I believe that Obama's rethorics is more effective, in particular at generating power from the ballot box....as we saw in Iowa. Edwards, not so much.

[Fading Captain]

63. Yeah. Talk isn't cheap, when you're saying something that needs to be said.

What Edwards is saying is soooo bloody important.

It needs to be said.

Obama's words are nice, but not important

[Renew Deal]

56. He's going to yell at congress

Really Really LOUD :spank:

:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

59. And then deliver one hell of a sommation! Denny Crane!