On February 2, 2007, I attended the DNC's winter meeting in Washington, DC. It was the first of two scheduled days for the various Democratic presidential candidates to present their platforms to DNC members.
The following was the scheduled list of candidates on this first day:
Senator Chris Dodd
Senator Barack Obama
Ret. General Wesley Clark
Senator John Edwards
Representative Dennis Kucinich
Senator Hillary Clinton
The remaining candidates were scheduled to speak on February 3.
As a One Corps member, I was invited to the meeting as a guest of the Edwards campaign, along with all the other One Corps members in the greater Washington, DC area. Due to the exciting list of speakers and the popularity of this meeting, we were advised to arrive there early.
I arrived there with a friend from my local MoveOn group. The meeting was scheduled in a large Hilton Hotel on Connecticut Avenue. When we got there, the giant hotel lobby was thronged with people. The Clinton campaign was the first one I saw. People holding Hillary signs were standing right inside the entranceway.
On a mission, I walked right past them. I was looking for the people in One Corps T-shirts that George Stern, National Director of One Corps, had told us would be there. It didn't take long to find them. They were in the middle of the lobby.
My friend and I signed in, and were given lovely new T-shirts to wear. We waited for a moment, while a few other members signed in, then a campaign staffer or volunteer ushered us downstairs, got us guest credentials, and pointed the way into the ballroom.
The ballroom was vast and cavernous and had space-age lighted ovals in the ceiling that made it look like something out of The Jetsons TV show. An attractive young woman in a One Corps T-shirt handed us campaign signs that said either "Tomorrow Begins Today" or "John Edwards for President" and showed us where to sit.
All the One Corps members were sitting together in a slightly raised area at the back of the room that was reserved for guests. Only DNC members were allowed on the floor of the ballroom.
I found a seat next to a woman I knew from the DC One Corps chapter. Almost immediately after I sat down, my co-captain from Baltimore County, to whom I had spoken on the phone, but not yet met, came up and introduced himself. I must say that in the three years that I've been an Edwards supporter, I've noticed there's a real camaraderie among his fans.
There were a lot of us! From where I was sitting, it looked like maybe a third, or at least a quarter, of the guests were there for John Edwards. The raised guest area arced around the back of the room, and white One Corps T-shirts filled a significant portion of it. Another significant portion of it was taken up with TV cameras.
The meeting started.
I won't mention everyone who spoke briefly, because there were a number of speakers who spoke only to introduce others, so I'll stick with the interesting parts, I hope.
One of the first speakers was DNC Chairman Howard Dean. He didn't speak for very long, but he happened to mention that the DNC is the world's oldest continuing political committee, which I found to be an interesting bit of trivia. Then there was a formal presentation of colors, and Dean introduced a woman rabbi from Arlington, Virginia, who gave an opening prayer.
Everyone said the Pledge of Allegiance. For those who think that Democrats are neither patriotic nor religious, it may be interesting to note that most of the people I heard around me included the words "under God."
Howard Dean then introduced Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who I think made a confession that he has a crush on Claire McCaskill. While speaking about the Democratic victory in November, he said that when Claire McCaskill won, he was so happy that he kissed her on the lips. He called it the "highlight of the night." See? Democrats are sexy. To quote a bumper sticker, who ever wanted a piece of elephant?
Senator Reid continued for a while to wax rhapsodic about various Democratic victories, either in electoral or congressional politics. It wasn't the most exciting speech of the day, but we've needed some good news for a while, so it got lots of applause.
Later, Howard Dean spoke again. He told us that four years ago, he predicted we Democrats "would bring hope back to America and we have." He claimed the Democrats in Congress have put an end to the culture of corruption that flourished when the Republicans were in control. I'm not so sure about that, but I think they've made a start.
He asserted that escalation is not the answer to the Iraq war, and that "we will hold President Bush accountable." He also said "the divisive politics of the Republican Party are over."
Dean then proceeded to spell out the rules for the candidates presentations. (If I'd known that every single candidate was going to totally ignore them, maybe I would've found this part funny.).
Dean said the DNC is fair and impartial. The doors are open to all the candidates, and the DNC offers a level playing field. This part actually seemed to be true. I didn't see any preference given to any candidate, and the order of speakers was determined by lottery.
Here's the part that turned out to be a little bit funny later: each candidate was supposed to have seven minutes to speak. After 10 minutes, there were supposed to be "wild gesticulations" to get them to stop. Considering that each and every candidate talked for at least 15 or 20 minutes, and the only wild gesticulations I saw were on the part of people holding campaign signs, I don't think there was ever any intention to enforce those rules.
That's fine. I don't think a seven minute speech would be very informative. It was just kind of weird that Dean made such a big point about rules that nobody had any intention of enforcing.
Each candidate was allowed to have 30 seconds of music to introduce them. I don't think anyone went over 30 seconds.
Each candidate was also allowed to have a hundred campaign signs in the audience. I didn't count them, but nobody seemed to have a lot more than that.
The first candidate to speak was Senator Chris Dodd.
My first notes on this candidate in my notebook are "blah, blah, blah." His initial remarks didn't grab me. By the end of the speech however, I thought that he had a good platform, and I liked his stances on issues.
He started off with talk about his background and his family, like many of the candidates. I tend to tune that personal stuff out, but he did tell a joke that was kind of funny. He was driving somewhere with his sister in the car, and he asked her "how many great leaders of the western world do you think there are?" Her reply: "one less than you think there are. Keep driving the car."
He followed this up with a laundry list of problems that our nation faces, and a good list of insults directed at Republicans.
One of the things he talked about was ending the war in Iraq. He said he hopes we can do better than a nonbinding resolution. I understand he is sponsoring a bill with more teeth in the Senate.
A good quote: he said we're "not going to take fear for an answer any longer in America."
He said we should seek bipartisanship, but bipartisanship does not mean getting Democrats to agree with Republican principles. Bipartisanship means to Dodd that we get Republicans to agree with our principles. I like the sound of that!
Some other issues he talked about:
Restoring habeas corpus and following the Geneva Convention.
Human rights.
Restoring America's moral authority.
Overturning the torture bill.
Healthcare for all.
Global warming was mentioned, very briefly.
He also said he would commit to a promised that if he's elected, no one who finishes high school and is qualified to go on will be denied because of economic factors.
Of all the candidates, I think he talked the longest. I didn't time it, so it's possible I'm wrong. There could be two reasons why it might've just seemed the longest. One is that he's not a very exciting speaker. Two is that while he was speaking, I was still expecting the candidates to follow Howard Dean's rules, so when he went way beyond seven minutes, I got impatient.
Summary: I like Senator Dodd’s issues, but suspect he would not be a very exciting candidate.
The next speaker was Senator Barack Obama.
Barack Obama got a big reception with lots of applause and lots of pictures. He got a standing ovation before he ever said anything.
It's just as well he got his applause in at the beginning, because his speech was a big disappointment.
I wish that after his speech, I could tell you what he stands for, but I can't. Aside from vague agreement with traditional Democratic issues, he took a position on nothing. He kept saying things like "let's have a real discussion about health care," which really means "I'm trying to be politically safe, so either I don't have a position on this issue, or I'm not going to tell you what it is."
Throughout his entire speech, I kept wishing he would say something meaningful. I contemplated with dread the possibility of America electing, yet again, a politician who gives speeches that sound good, but don't mean anything.
Don't get me wrong. His speech sounded good. My problem with it is that it was superficial.
He said he was there because we're at a "sobering place." He said that in the coming election, the candidates rivals won't be each other, they won't even be the other party, "it's cynicism we're fighting against." This was followed by a general bemoaning of the fact that people have lost faith in the political process.
He said that the election can't be about dirty politics, and that the candidates owe voters inspiration.
"We don't want another election where voters are simply holding their noses and feel like they're choosing between the lesser of two evils."
He talked a lot about "consensus" and kept emphasizing debate, while not actually taking a specific position on anything. He called on candidates to provide a specific Iraq policy, for instance, but didn't offer one himself.
He said "we need hope, not plans." What does that mean? It sounds pretty vague and impractical. He said "Hope is what we offer."
Summary: Senator Obama is a competent speaker, but not a very exciting candidate, in my opinion. He didn't offer one single proposal.
I think the next speaker, Wesley Clark, was late, so Howard Dean took the opportunity to handle some minor party business.
The business was a yea or nay vote on some proposed amendments to DNC rules.
The first issue was a proposal to award bonus delegates as an incentive for states to hold their primaries later than they did in 2004. It was approved. This is probably an attempt by the DNC to discourage states like California and Florida from moving their primaries up. Whether or not they will accept the incentive remains to be seen.
The second issue was an amendment to the rules to include more youth delegates at their convention in Denver. This was also approved.
After this, retired General Wesley Clark spoke.
Wesley Clark opened with "I'm a soldier, and I'm fighting for our country." He gave an extensive tribute to soldiers, saying that he feels their pain personally.
He said we have a "president who mistakes stubbornness for strength and slogans for strategy."
He said Iraq was an illegitimate war in the first place. He talked a lot about his military record. The first several minutes of the speech were entirely about his military record and about ending the war in Iraq.
He spoke of pay equality for women, health insurance, and poverty. I think pay equality is a pretty simple issue, but I didn't hear any specific proposal on health insurance or poverty, and I'm not even sure if he said whether he would support universal healthcare.
He asked whatever happened to the notion of shared sacrifice, where is it today while we get tax cuts for the rich while we're at war? He said we should "wear our military might, not on our sleeve, but tucked away in our back pocket."
His speech was entirely focused on the military, and very little else. I would've liked to hear more about non-military issues. Perhaps because of this, or because he kept a very even tone throughout, I found his speech pretty dull.
Summary: General Wesley Clark’s speech had too much focus on the military. Not much excitement.
After Clark's speech was over, the excitement in the One Corps section started to build quickly. Someone had given us plastic packages of tic tacs to use as shakers to make noise, and people started to take them in hand. There was a general scramble to find our campaign signs.
We knew John Edwards was next.
When John Edwards walked on stage, we were on our feet! Nobody from the campaign had told us this explicitly, but all the One Corps members seemed to understand that we were there to make some noise for our candidate, and that is exactly what we did.
I know from a video of the event that I saw later that the 30 seconds of music that John Edwards chose was John Mellencamp's Our Country, but I never heard it. There was way too much whooping and hollering going on.
I think initially most of the noise and excitement was coming from the One Corps section, but it wasn't long before the entire audience had caught the excitement of John Edwards. By the time he was finished speaking, the entire audience had interrupted him with standing ovations five times. Some people say it was six.
Edwards opened his speech with regret for the passing of Molly Ivins. He introduced his wife, Elizabeth, and talked about the need to address women's health issues.
From there, he launched into a rousing speech that gave, as the reasons we were there, poignant examples of human suffering in America and abroad that vividly illustrate the problems we face in the areas of jobs, workers rights, healthcare, education, poverty, and war. After each heartrending example, he reminded us that "it doesn't have to be that way." He then invoked the conscience of those present by asking repeatedly "Will you stand up for them?"
In response, the entire audience got to its feet. Chants started from the One Corps section and spread: "Edwards! Edwards! Edwards!"
Senator Edwards reminded us that Dr. Martin Luther King once said that if you remain silent when you know you should speak out, your silence is a betrayal.
Edwards said:
"It is not right, through our silence, for us to enable this president to escalate this war…
We can not be satisfied with passing nonbinding resolutions that we know this president will ignore. We have the power to stop the escalation of this war. We have to use our power. We have to be strong. We have to stand up for what's right.
And one more thing, while I'm at it. This president describes himself as the decider. I got news for you Mr. President. You're not the decider. The American people are the decider and they decided about you a very long time ago.”
By this time, the whole audience was getting a pretty good workout from getting in and out of our chairs. We were on our feet again!
Edwards went on to say that the American people are speaking out and our leaders need to do the same. He said George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are counting on us "to be weak, to be political, and to be careful. This is not the time for political calculation. It is the time for political courage."
He went on to speak passionately about helping those in poverty, true universal healthcare, and global warming and environmental policy as "the great moral imperatives of our time."
More standing ovations.
"We're better than this. The United States of America is better than this. We are not the country that we saw at the Superdome after Katrina hit New Orleans. We are not the country of Abu Ghraib. We are not the country of Guantanamo. We are not the country of government behind closed doors. We are not the country that spies on its own people. The United States of America is better than that. Our people are better than that."
He encouraged backbone in the Democratic Party and spoke in strong support of organized labor. The audience got to its feet again.
"It is time to be patriotic about something other than war."
The above quote was followed by a call to action to stand up and work on our problems now. Tomorrow begins today.
Here’s my video from the audience of excerpts of his speech. Warning: the video quality is poor, but the audio is fine.
Summary: John Edwards got five standing ovations. Maybe six. He got the most enthusiastic reception of the day. The mainstream media pundits won't tell you this, but that's how it really went down.
You have to have a certain amount of pity for anyone who has to follow a speech like the one Edwards had just given.
The speech Dennis Kucinich gave was quieter, but also powerful.
Dennis Kucinich started out by saying he knows first hand about poverty. I guess that was supposed to be a dig at John Edwards. I suppose I would be quibbling if I pointed out that Edwards does too, having started out his life among the working poor.
Kucinich talked of the need to rebuild the cities, repair neighborhoods, renew something or other (he used a lot of “re” words.) I have to admit that by this point I was a little tired of taking notes.
He talked about single-payer not-for-profit healthcare, which he called "Medicare for all."
He spoke about his famous proposal for a Department of Peace and Nonviolence at a cabinet level. I happen to think this is a fabulous idea!
Portraying himself as a man of peace, he noted that he voted against the war and consistently voted against funding it. He said the war never would've happened if he had been president. He said that we don't have to wait until 2009 to end it, but the Democratic Congress must deny the money to keep the war going.
The most moving part of his speech was when he talked about a visit to Lebanon after the war there this summer. He said nothing could describe the destruction.
"Big bold signs declared ‘this is your democracy, America.’"
He spoke of a photo in a graveyard of a beautiful precious smiling child, who was dead.
He said that the people they saw there had every right to express anger the United States, but instead they expressed forgiveness and hope for reconciliation. They told him to tell America that they are not terrorists, but they do not hate Israel. They said they want to be safe in their village and be left alone. They said they want peace.
Kucinich had me close to tears at this point, I admit.
"I made a promise to work for a world where all children are safe."
He said we must make it our priority to work for peace. He talked of rediscovering who we were before 9/11. He said we must restore the soul of America, and discover compassion.
After the speech, one of the other One Corps people sitting next to me said "that was beautiful."
I like Dennis Kucinich. I don't necessarily think of him as being terribly practical, but I like him. I hope that as a nation we will learn to practice nonviolence as he asks.
I saw Kucinich in the lobby after the event. I walked up to him and thanked him for his call to peace. He handed me some campaign material, which I will read, but haven't yet.
Summary: Rep. Kucinich gave a moving speech. He made some very good points. He's a good, decent guy. The reason I won't vote for him is that I think John Edwards is more pragmatic, but just as decent and honest.
Up next was the media's darling, Senator Hillary Clinton.
Clinton's speech was smart, well presented, and politically calculating. Some of it was masterful doubletalk.
For example, she said we should "hold the president accountable," while insisting that a nonbinding resolution on Iraq was the best we could do.
"I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to do everything we can to change the direction of this country."
Yeah, unless it's politically difficult.
She said that we've lost something these last six years, and it's the basic bargain that we grew up with. The one that says that working people will have what they need to survive.
She talked about the middle class as our country's largest social engineering project. She pointed out, correctly, I think, that all countries have rich and poor, but in America, years ago, we created a middle class.
She said the middle class "has done their part, and they're waiting for our government to be on their side again."
Clinton got minimal applause compared to Obama, and certainly compared to Edwards. She faced vocal disapproval from some audience members when she told us that a nonbinding resolution on Iraq is the best they can do. She actually got a certain amount of heckling and boos. She looked briefly distressed. Her supporters did their best to counter the dissent with a standing ovation, but there were a lot of people who didn't stand up.
"If I had been president in 2002, I would not have started this war."
Coming from someone who voted for the war, this sounds like doublespeak. To be fair to her, I think it's less disingenuous than it sounds. I think if anyone other than George Bush had been president, they probably would have used diplomacy and verifiable intelligence to avoid this war. After all, it was never necessary.
She said something about health care, but it wasn't clear to me what her policy would be.
She talked about building political coalitions, which to me means she's talking about making deals with the Republicans before they even ask for concessions.
She emphasized her experience and her qualifications, but for someone with so much experience, it was kind of weird that she said, when talking about our overall well-being as a nation, "We might even be falling behind." Do you think?
She said we should stop global warming. I'm glad to hear all the candidates talking about this. She also said we should stop the genocide in Darfur.
She tried to portray herself as a tough candidate by saying that when our party and our candidates are attacked, we have got to fight back.
She urged us to elect the first woman president, which is something I would like to see happen sometime soon. I just don't think I want it to be her.
After the speech, I was even more convinced than I was before that Senator Clinton is the media’s candidate, not ours.
Summary: Senator Clinton is very smart and capable. She has often been accused of political triangulation and calculation. This speech did nothing to dispel that.
While writing this piece, I faced an internal struggle between party loyalty and honesty. I opted for honesty.
I know that the Democratic Party has traditionally stood up for middle class Americans and working people. I believe it will continue to do so. It is because I hold this belief, that I feel confident in saying that in spite of my misgivings about some of them, I could support any of these candidates, should they become the nominee.
I do have a strong preference. This Democrat hopes that our nominee is John Edwards.
I want to add one more thing. I had a preference for my candidate before I went into this. There's no reason you should take my word for it. There's currently a video of the whole meeting available on C-SPAN's web site. I encourage you to watch it if you have time.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Thanks.
The one thing that did strike me in this article was the "we need hope, not plans" phrase. I tend to disagree because I think that with good plans and something to look forward to, hope will follow. At this point though, hope isn't ending the war or solving the big problems.
Excellent recounting of the "meeting" with details and flavor that we otherwise would not get to see. I watched it on CSPAN and it was obvious to me that John Edward's presentation was the most dynamic and stirring and authentic and the entire crowd, not just the Edwards' contingent, responded accordingly. I think his authenticity is what comes across and brings forth a corresponding response. I hope he will maintain this. I particularly liked his reiteration that "silence is betrayal" though I found myself thinking that, on the other hand, he's not there; i.e., in congress and having to deal with possibly conflicting constituent pulls. On the other other hand, I like to think that he would be more courageous if here were still in congress and would be speaking out, and loudly, as opposed to the political shilly shallying and downright cowardice of most of congress. [Dobbs and Kucinich and Barbara Lee are exceptions, but she is not running.]
Also agree that Obama's speech lacked vigor, depth and "authenticity" [he didn't look up to his usual snuff--perhaps the spotlight is beginning to take its toll or just highlighting the lack of depth]
Clinton was "clintonesque" and that is not necessarily a drawback--for her. I sensed some strain, as in "I'm not sure right now that I want to be here right how" though she has learned to be the good trooper in a show that must go on, which will stand her in good stead, along with all the moola. She will have a difficult time overcoming the "elitist" or "globalist" aura; ie. the representative for Dupont [and Rupert Murdoch -- wonder whether he's made up his mind to back her or McCain] instead of "we the people." It "seemed" glaringly obvious that she did not have the audience with her; whereas Edwards did.
It was interesting to me that Tucker Carlson [not my favorite bow tie] interviewed Kucinich outside the hotel; if he interviewed others I did not see it. Kucinich handled himself extremely well and Tucker either could not or did not attempt to trivialize the interivew as he is wont to do. [So sorry that people will not vote for peace; even those who are anti-war; expect that was part of Tucker's intent -- find out just how deep this anti-war thing is -- or, perhaps no one else would talk with him.] I Expect too that antiwar sentiment will grow as the dollars continue to flow into the chaos that is Iraq. We don't seem to mind sending our soldiers there so long as it's "voluntary." In this latter regard, Edwards as a tough row ahead; but it seems he's up for it. I also expect anti-congressional sentiment to grow in direct proportion to what happens in the middle east.
Glad to see that Howard Dean is alive and well. Thought perhaps they had locked him in a dungeon somewhere.
I hope more people learn about what the candidates stand for. Platforms, speeches and personalities all combine to make the right candidate.
"going for broke" -- that's the crux. They're all smart and savy. Who's got the money AND the magic AND the stamina. Hillary has the money and stamina -- not sure about the magic. Edwards has populist magic, and money and stamina for now. Obama has money and magic and he's pretty tough -- not sure how he'll hold up.
Time will tell where the voters' heads are at -- in Iraq, on their shoulders, or up their bums. It's going to be interesting and, I predict, exceptionally dirty. Though I think all the dem candidates will this time around be more prepared than the hapless Kerry.
Robin, thanks. I thought the whole "We need hope, not plans" comment was just a really weird thing to say. Lack of realistic plans is what's gotten us into this mess. I can't imagine how Obama or his speechwriter thought that was a good line.
Missy, that's interesting that Tucker Carlson interviewed Kucinich. Also that he didn't trivialize it.
I think you're right about the possibility of anti-congressional sentiment if they don't deal appropriately with the problem of Iraq. Cowardice and symbolic gestures is not going to convince anyone that they're even trying. In my opinion, it would be better to make the effort to pass a bill for ending the war that has real teeth and fail to do it than to not even make a genuine effort. At least if they try and fail to get the votes, what happens is definitely not the Democrats fault.
Thanks for your detailed comment, Missy. I'm not going to respond to all of it because I mainly agree with you.
Leslie, sorry, I know this was long. It took me all day Saturday to write it actually.
Peter, no. I'm not from North Carolina. I've only even been to the south a few times in my life. Right now I live in Maryland, which is technically south of the Mason Dixon line, but doesn't have a particularly Southern culture. I lived in California for almost the last 20 years.
I think you're right about candidates here having a very difficult time, if they're not religious. However, most of us expect them not to impose their religious beliefs on other people. I think Americans just want to know that our president is going to be a moral person. For some reason, many of us have a prejudice that says atheists can't be that. I don't think I understand that prejudice, but it exists.
I'm not sure why you brought up the religious issue, unless it was my mention of the Pledge of Allegiance. Was there something in the article that raised that question for you?
I believe in letting people know when I have a bias on the subject of my article. I have supported John Edwards for three years and voted for him for president last time.
I don't agree with your assessment that the other candidates are immaterial. America is supposed to be a democracy. Right now, it's a democracy that's been perverted with too much money in politics. That makes it very difficult for candidates like Kucinich, who won't be able to raise very much money. They still have the right to run for president. Barring a miracle, it is very likely that they won't win. They are important because of their messages. They have people who support them, who have a right to a voice in this democracy. At least having those candidates speak out helps those voices be heard.
Hillary Clinton does not have as wide of a lead as you may think being from another country and perhaps not understanding the way our primary process works. The polls that show her in the lead are national polls. The states that have historically gone most of the way toward choosing the candidate are Iowa and New Hampshire. They vote first, and after they vote, people tend to jump on the bandwagon of whoever wins those states. The polls from Iowa and New Hampshire show a very different story. Edwards is way ahead in Iowa, and he is a close second in New Hampshire at this time.
None of the polls are particularly relevant, because we are almost a year away from any of the primaries. The national polls are particularly irrelevant. They are mostly something for the media to talk about. The national polls tend to be polls of mostly people that get their news from the mainstream media and that don't follow politics particularly closely. They tell the pollsters they will vote for whoever the media says is the front runner. It's a vicious cycle. Like I said, the polls are largely irrelevant.
Peter, people don't vote for the vice president. Any failure of the Kerry ticket can be squarely blamed on Kerry and the way his campaign was handled. Edwards was very frustrated by the way that campaign was handled, by the way. Besides, John Edwards learned a great deal from that campaign. He is running a much better campaign this time around, and has become an even better candidate that he was in 2004, when I thought he was great.
Peter, yes, I think Edwards would be a much better president than any of the other candidates. A stronger candidate too, which is really the question you asked. They are two different things. I get the feeling that Edwards is running out of a real sense of service to his country and a moral imperative to help solve the problems we've been having. That's a far more mature perspective to be coming from than wanting the glory of being president or wanting power or fame or whatever the other reasons are that cause many of the politicians to run. I may be being idealistic, but I think a real desire to offer service to humanity trumps more selfish reasons any day. Edwards is a leader on the order of someone like Bobby Kennedy or FDR. We Americans haven't seen that in a very long time, and we are hungry for it.
Regarding your statement that Edwards is "going for broke," I think that's just who he is. He is very intense and very competitive and his biography tells me that he always has been. I don't think the intensity that you're seeing from him now will let up.
Maureen, thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I saw John Edward on "Meet the Press," this morning and I was impressed. He did a great job of answering questions on the important issues and he did it without bashing his opponents (mainly Clinton and Obama).
I agree with you that Kerry was the reason for the failure to win against Bush and that Edwards could be a very strong candidate if he can get his message out and show that he is a tough candidate and not willing to play the political game. It is supposed to be of the people for the people and it hasn't been with this current administration. It sounds like he touched on all of the important issues we are currently dealing with.
There's still plenty of time before the primary so it will be interesting to watch what happens over the next year and a half. I think Obama is still too new and it's not his time and Clinton has the advantage of being married to Bill, who many would love to see back in the White House. To some, her election means his re-election.
"To some, her election means his re-election." Interesting, and true; and, to many it will cut both ways -- and many won't want the whole Clinton lock, stock and barrel elitist baggage, no matter her qualifications. One of Kerry's biggest problems was the "perception" that he was an elitist; many of his actions bore this out. I always wished the ticket had been the other way around.
The Mason Dixon Line, and how to cross it. I grew up in Pennsylvania and would go with my family on cattle buying trips down to VA, WVA and the Demarva Peninsula. I remember having a love-hate ambivalence about those trips, because I grew up in an egalatarian family and crossing that "line" was like going into a different world, where Republicans were the moderates and Dixiecrats reigned supreme and Jim Crow was very much alive.
It's wonderful to see a candidate who understands the sensibilities of ordinary people and all of us who would like to see a return to our old fashioned american values which includes respect and adherence to the law and equal rights and opportunity for all. Those corporations who don't like or won't abide by that can go set up shop in China and an American company that knows how to make a better mousetrap will be happy take their place and make a decent profit.
I enjoyed reading your honestly biased article. Thank you very much for painting the picture for us. I have always liked Dennis Kucinich - he is a very righteous man and speaks about whatever is in his heart. But, I don't think he will make it as the Dems candidate. John Edwards is a very good speaker - he is an accomplished lawyer with a silver tongue.
I believe that the country is ready as never before for an independent candidate with a little charisma
Looks like the convention needs the Oscar band to start playing to stop the candidates from speaking. I thank you again for this piece - I don't trust the mainstream media anymore.
I think you and Missy are both right that many people think by electing Hillary Clinton they would be reelecting Bill Clinton. Although I thought Bill Clinton was fine when he was in office, I would have preferred him to be a bit more genuinely populist. I liked him, but I think we have an opportunity to elect someone better now. I am also troubled by the dynastic aspect of electing presidents over and over from the same families. I think it is an anti-democratic tendency, that is better suited to a country with a monarchy. I would like to see America embrace more diversity of influence, not keep the same families in power year after year.
Missy, the Mason Dixon line and how to cross it sounds like a title for a book. I need to do some traveling in the south, it is one part of the nation I haven't seen much of it. In other words, I don't talk like John Edwards, but he sure speaks my language.
Jai, thanks for your comment. I like Dennis Kucinich a lot too. I don't think he will make it as the candidate either. Much as I like Kucinich, I actually do like Edwards better. I think Edwards has a toughness that presidents probably need to have, because of all the difficult problems they need to work on, and the political attacks that come their way.
I'm not sure I like the sound of "silver tongue." I think he is very persuasive and knows how to make a case for something, obviously. I think, much like Kucinich, he speaks from the heart. He's just learned to present what the heart wants to say in a way that's more likely to be accepted.
What I'm trying to say is, I think he is a charismatic and persuasive speaker, but also an honest one. I think the skill of his verbal presentation can lead some people to think he's not being straight with them. I have observed him for some time with the natural skepticism that one tends to apply to politicians, and I believe he is honest. He has the verbal skill of an accomplished attorney, which of course he is, and I think it's great. Attorneys have a sworn duty to represent their client. I think Edwards now thinks of the American people as being his client. I'd hire him to represent me any day.
Peter, I actually felt like Edwards won that debate with Cheney, but I know many people did not. It may be that I just find Cheney so repulsive that I can't take him seriously. Yes, that election was brutal. I think this one will be very tough also.
Edwards is being much more aggressive this time. So far, he's been much more willing to be critical of opponents. He manages to do it without being nasty, but I think he's learned that you can't be nice all the time. It should be an interesting campaign.
As for the DNC, I was encouraged to learn that they were trying to put pressure on the states to keep the primary season longer. A longer primary season does give the candidates more of a chance to be heard, and minimizes the advantage of lots of money. This is going to be needed if the candidates with less funding are going to get a fair hearing, because Hillary Clinton has pulled out all the stops on raising money. I just heard the other day that she's requiring her top tier fundraisers to raise $1 million each, which is 10 times the amount that Bush expected from his top-tier fundraisers last time. Bush was criticized at that time for trying to buy the presidency.
Must admit -- though I am I gigantic fan of the candidate -- I kind of agree with Peter's John-Boy Walton comment. Not that there's anything wrong with it precisely; John Edwards is impeccably genuine. So if he comes across a little hokey -- at least he means it.
But he'll need to rock out to something a little funkier than John Mellencamp if he wants to move the youth & get out the Hip Hop Vote.
Remember: besides Carter in the wake of Watergate no Democrat has ever been elected president without a spike in youth turnout.
Thanks for your hard work astrogirl. Keep on.
Bongo, I don't know what you call it, but I'm interpreting your comment to mean you don't like the font. I should probably pay more attention to that sort of thing next time. Something as long as this is definitely something I have to paste in from Microsoft Word, because I can only write it by dictating with voice recognition software. Word has a really stupid default font, but that may not be the actual problem. I think I changed my default font in Word to courier at one point because I was writing screenplays. That's a stupid font too, but those crazy Hollywood people require it. Maybe now I should just change it to something I actually like.
Mike, I didn't write down what every candidate used for their theme music, but I don't remember thinking that any of them had a great choice. I do know Clark used "won't back down" by Tom Petty. I wish Edwards would choose something different too. His current choice has already been used for a commercial. He's been polling well among youth already, I believe, and has a lot of young supporters, but maybe he should crank it up a notch.
Peter, I want to know that even I haven't watched the Meet the Press thing yet, so the fact that I'd give you a link to his appearance on a show known for its tough questions without even knowing how my candidate did shows that I have a lot of confidence in him. I'm looking forward to watching it today. I like his politics, too, obviously, and agree that there's nothing radical about them.
I'm not going to kill you for the John boy Walton comment. He does look rather youthful and innocent. I see him more as Bobby or Jack Kennedy with a Southern accent. When I first became aware of him back in 2003, I thought being a rather handsome fellow would help him politically, but it seems to cut both ways. It shouldn't matter at all, but a lot of what we know about the candidates comes from TV.
Thanks, Melissa.
Katrina, actually, I think a longer campaign gives the candidates with less money more of a chance to be heard. If it were a short campaign, the people who could raise a lot of money in a short time could just bombard us with advertisements.
Yes, kudos to Howard Dean! I knew he would be a terrific DNC chairman when they chose him. His 50 state strategy has really paid off. I also believe he will be fair to all the presidential candidates this time. I know a lot of people thought the DNC tried to influence the primaries in favor of Kerry last time, so I'm glad they now have a chairman I trust more.
Lauren, glad you liked that one. It isn't my joke, but I like it.
Peter, I agree. I would rather see a single-payer system like what you have in Canada too. I think it is not something we can achieve in this country for a really long time. There just isn't the political will for it. People don't understand that it would be cheaper and better than what we have, and they don't trust the government to administrate it.
I like Edwards' plan because it is something that is probably achievable in the shorter term and would get everyone covered. If you read the plan carefully, there's also a suggestion that it could evolve into a single-payer plan with time. I think breaking down the barrier to everyone having health care first is the important thing.
Good article against Astrogirl.