It can easily be argued that John Edwards gave the strongest performance in the Democratic debate last night. Especially in moments when he took on Washington special interests and the sad state of health care in America, he showed himself to be the kind of fighter who will not rest until he does his best for the American people, which would be a big change from any president I can remember. (This is not to say that the two Democratic presidents I remember, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, weren't somewhat helpful, because they were. But, I don't remember Carter very well, and I know that Clinton made a lot of compromises he should not have made, such as NAFTA.)
In the debate last night, there were moments when Edwards was breathing fire. Most politicians sold us out long ago, and we the people need someone who will put up a good fight on our behalf. Edwards is that guy, and I hope at last that is becoming clear to everyone.
Before I get into the high points of the debate, I should take a moment to mention the new Edwards campaign video that everybody's talking about. The campaign obviously has had enough of a vapid mainstream media that can't seem to talk about the issues, because they are so obsessed with John Edwards's hair. In a powerful juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy, the Hair video asks us what is really important. The choice of music from the anti-Vietnam musical Hair is brilliant. It reminds us that then, as now, America fought a pointless war with obscure goals that our leaders seemed incapable of ending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI
It would be nice to think that the reporters who have been perpetuating the hair story in the media are smart enough to know that they've just been roundly and justly insulted and decent enough to feel some shame over it. Time will tell.
During the debate itself, Edwards answered directly every question he was asked. His answers were blunt and to the point. Here are some highlights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7gsk2Bf0ns
But I think the question is -- the question is: What is going to be done to stop this war?
The other people have raised the question earlier. And in fact, Senator Obama spoke just a minute ago about the White House agreeing that the parliament, the Iraqi parliament could take a month-long vacation because it was too hot, while our men and women are putting their lives on the line every day.
Here's my question. While the Iraqi parliament is on vacation, is George Bush going to be on vacation in Crawford, Texas?
What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.
(APPLAUSE)
It is the only way he will change course. He will never change course unless he's made to do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0BztvhVpU
If you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?
And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.
I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.
(APPLAUSE)
And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them.
If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them over and over and over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE8-G16Df1A
And just this past week -- in fact, you were with me on the third day -- I went on a three-day poverty tour in America.
The last day, I was with a man in western Virginia, in the Appalachian mountains -- 51 years old, three years younger than me.
He'd been born with a severe cleft palate, and he was proud of the fact that someone had finally volunteered to correct it. He had not been able to talk -- I want to finish this. He had not been able to talk until it was fixed.
Here was the problem. It was fixed when he was 50 years old. For five decades, James Lowe lived in the richest nation on the planet not able to talk because he couldn't afford the procedure that would've allowed him to talk. When are we going to stand up and do something about this?
We have talked about it too long. We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we're ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.
Asked by one of the YouTube members who submitted a video question whether the candidates would be willing to work for minimum wage while in the White House, Edwards answered with a direct and simple "Yes." Now, I recognize that John Edwards has money and so this would not be the same as a low income family surviving on minimum wage, but it is still an important symbolic gesture if, as president, he would accept the same wage that's earned by some of our nation's poorest workers.
Asked by another YouTube member whether he would protect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers, this was his answer:
As president of the United States, we will embrace and lift up all Americans, whatever their faith beliefs or whether they have no faith beliefs, as Stephen just spoke about. That's what America is.
Now, my faith is enormously important to me personally. It's gotten me through some hard times, as I'm sure that's true of a lot of the candidates who are on this stage.
But it is crucial that the American people know that as president it will not be my job -- and I believe it would be wrong -- for me to impose my personal faith beliefs on the American people or to decide any kind of decision, policy decision, that will affect America on the basis of my personal faith beliefs.
I thought John Edwards had by far the strongest answers in the debate, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here are some samples of what others had to say...
Roger Simon at The Politico:
“FIRST PLACE: John Edwards. Analysis: John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you. Here was his key response, his voice rising as he went along: ‘Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power! The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!’”
...Edwards pressed his populist case as passionately as he has at any previous debate, presenting himself as the only one who would take the fight to banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and other special interests. His genuine outrage was readily apparent which was a far more effective way of showing his passion than when he merely speaks about how passionately he cares about things.
“The biggest spike of the night went to John Edwards. He may be trailing Clinton and Obama but on health care, one of his key issues, the meter movers thought he was tops.” The moment was when Edwards said, “We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we are ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.” Said Kaye, “Take a look at that, did you see that? The meter hit 90, all the way up to 90. That was the most favorable reading of the night.” CNN’s group of viewers was comprised of undecided Democrats and non-partisan independents in New Hampshire.
MessageJury.com's New Hampshire focus group said it was "very much an Edwards night."
A plurality of our group (four of 12) thought Sen. Edwards won the debate. And we heard a word used to describe him afterwards that any campaign would want to be associated with their candidate: “genuine”. When asked, most of this group thought he was, indeed, “genuine.”
The questions in the debate, submitted by YouTube viewers, were often more pointed and more insightful than those offered in previous debates by reporters. Nevertheless, it seemed Edwards just couldn't get enough of answering questions. In a live webcast after the debate, Edwards answered additional questions, including the top 2 questions voted on by users at CommunityCounts.us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2sqwfYBzq0
It's kind of nice to see a presidential candidate who actually listens and responds.


Comments: 5
The problems (and solutions that need to be initiated) will not disappear after the election. So far, Edwards has assessed the issues and presented the facts. What we need to hear is proposals -- from all the candidates -- on solutions. It would help to focus us all on why we vote: it isn't the hair, or the gender, or the age, or the name. It's who can get the job done, and how. At the moment, Edwards is nicely defining the job.
I thought Edwards won the debate. But he talks the same way all the time... on camera or off. In front of a crowd, or alone with friends. I believe that he will make a wonderful and dynamic president.
Thanks for the wrap-up, Astrogirl!
And, that is precisely why they are afraid of him and haul out the "rich lawyer" crapola -- to go with the crapola about "tort reform" -- as in "save the poor corporations from the greedy people."
I especially appreciated his candor and clarification of his "personal" stand versus his duty to represent the people on the issue of gay marriage. I personally believe that gay marriage is fine and feel perfectly comfortable that he would work for equal rights for everyone.
John Edwards still comes across as the only sincerely passionate candidate and overall is looking 'good' -- and I don't mean handsome -- and so is Elizabeth, especially the way she handled the reporters -- she is not glib and is one steady woman. [I kinda like that he has a lower profile with the MSM -- gives him space for now.]
Just an aside: did you catch Howard Dean with CNN reporter afterward. The reporter pointed out that the questions that the candidates were getting were questions that are usually only answered in a controlled setting and he kept wanting to say that the dems were taking jabs at each other. I was pleased to hear Dean's response to the effect that they had better get used to it, because the people are insisting on real answers to real questions; and, furthermore, laying out your position is not 'jabbing' the other guy. Go Howard.