Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bloggers Say it Again -
They Like Edwards

CHICAGO - It's John Edwards country at the blogapalooza that is Yearly Kos.

We're sitting here at the progressive blogosphere's first presidential forum, to be followed by individual break-out sessions with the candidates. Sen. Hillary Clinton, citing a scheduling conflict, held her break-out before the forum, as opposed to after it, as the other candidates plan to do. She was warmly received, despite the fact that Edward Anderson, a Daily Kos blogger, walked around minutes before the session, passing around buttons that read "Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton" with a sad, yellow face.

But it was Edwards that shined in the forum. The former North Carolina senator received two standing ovations, his voice drowned out by applause as he derided special interests in Washington. When the candidates were asked if they'd have a presidential blogger, Edwards said he would - and her name would be Elizabeth Edwards. Edwards's wife was an early adopter in blogging, and she's been a crucial, encouraging voice in her husband's campaign on the Internet.

There are a few reasons why Yearly Kos is Edwards country. Since the beginning of the year, the former North Carolina senator has led the monthly straw poll at Daily Kos, the popular liberal blog that lent its name to this convention. Last month, he won 36 percent of the vote - with Obama at 27 and Clinton at 9. Joe Trippi, who holds rock star status here after he effectively used the Internet to build support for Howard Dean's campaign, is now a major force in the Edwards campaign. Mathew Gross, a former Deaniac who launched the first ever presidential blog, is a chief online adviser for Edwards.
So even on Sen. Barack Obama's birthday -- he turned 46 today -- in the town that he now calls home, Edwards seemed to rule at Yearly Kos.

-- Jose Antonio Vargas

By Bill Hamilton  |  August 4, 2007; 4:44 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: David Broder on How to ID
An Iowa Republican

Next: Netroots Look to Grow Up


I wish people would realize JOHN EDWARDS is for the JOHN & JANE DOE. If you notice the media does not give him the coverage they give the others. He comes thru as being a honest geuine person. He could get the country back on track and not just the rich but the average person as well. He will put money where it is needed including bridges, tunnels etc.

Posted by: cmuller6 | August 8, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Pahleez.....Edwards is looking out for the ordinary and poor peoples from the steps of his 25000 square foot home. Only in the blog-o-sphere does this seem reasonable.

Posted by: worldofhurt | August 7, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I lived in L.A. for a quarter century; I understand the dynamics of image over substance. Edwards has a "Kennedy image" and even though you may think this is a shallow reason to vote for him, you'd be surprised how many people will do so on this factor alone. Perhaps more importantly (but not important-lie)... Edwards is a southerner; he can take the South in a presidential $ellection; Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama cannot.

Posted by: oldcoyoteknose | August 6, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse


This is the second in a series of articles that we will be publishing this summer. In them we will be discussing possible scenarios behind the current Presidential campaigns in the Democratic Party and the inherent dangers ahead. None of the opinions expressed herein are the official positions of either the Progressive movement - inside and outside of the Democratic Party - the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, any Democratic candidate for President or the California Democratic Party. They have been written by, endorsed by and published by the signers only. If you agree with our analysis please feel free to repost it everywhere you can. Sign your name to it as well if you wish. If you disagree then we look forward to your comments. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a tough-minded debate and an essential victory for the Democratic Party in the Presidential election in 2008...


Al Gore's acclaimed and Oscar winning documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth", exposed the dark reality of what's to come for a carbon based society if radical and progressive steps are not forthcoming. Well, here is another inconvenient truth; Republicans and their conservative corporate supporters are favoring Hillary and at times Barack as the Democratic Presidential pick. What is it that they know that we don't? Could it be that the Republicans would rather run against Hillary or Barack and if so, why?

Republican pundits, strategists and status quo editorial pages are lauding, if not anointing, Senator Clinton and at times Senator Obama as the Democratic Party front-runners. I guess that it's not surprising since Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have raised much of their campaign money from Wall Street financiers who are not flaming liberals to anyone's knowledge. It's no secret, according to William Domoff, author of, "Who Rules America" that Wall Street contributes to both political parties with most of their largess going to the Republicans; but why are they so happy to support Clinton and Obama this time around?

Well here it is; they know America's dark social reality. Yes, they know the reality of racism, commonly known as white supremacy, and sexism, the ism that has stifled female wage earners - no matter what their race - from organizing along common and natural interests with their male counterparts; thereby getting equal rights in the workplace and throughout society. Maybe that old saying is true; "the truth will set you free if it don't kill you first." Now, we know that many good white liberals and progressives alike may find this proposition uncomfortable and deplorable, with good reason. After all, there has been significant social progress for people of color and women over these past 230 years.

With the enactment of civil rights legislation and the implementation of equal rights policies, African-Americans have made tremendous gains in government policy, housing and education. An African-American woman is now Secretary of State and was formerly the National Security Advisor, a position that influences the decision making process of the most powerful public officer in human history. Furthermore, an African-American man served as Secretary of State and previously on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Women from all racial and ethnic backgrounds have made gigantic steps from business CEO's to healthcare professionals, to public office holders. Currently, a woman sits two offices away from the Presidency. Yes, we as a society have made significant strides in social progress, especially since the Sixties.

It was just some forty years ago that peace, love and understanding, espoused by the Hippies, offered hope for America amid the war, assassinations and social upheaval of the Sixties. This was lucidly portrayed on the History channel airing of the documentary on the Sixties. The Hippies who gathered in cities, such as San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, celebrated and reveled in the goodness and potential of the human spirit. They believed that the artificially constructed social barriers of all types could be overcome through flower power. This, we affectionately refer to as a Hippie trip.

While we do share a profound belief in, and a deep affinity for, human kindness and generosity represented by the Hippies, the reality is that we are not there yet. We must come out of our Hippie haze and see our political and social reality for what it is; white supremacy and sexism are intricately intertwined into every facet of our social and political life.

Hence, Americans for centuries have come to view our reality through the prism of these concepts, whether consciously or unconsciously. One of the major tenets of the white supremacy mentality and mindset is the superiority of the white male. This was magnified in the fallout surrounding black athletes playing quarterback in the NFL. Just recall the controversy with black quarterback Donavan McNabb and right wing conservative provocative talk show host Russ Limbaugh who raised doubts about the mental ability of McNabb. The institutionalized message communicated was that the quarterback position required leadership ability, the proper temperament and the cerebral capability for abstract thinking. The benign overt message carried the malignant subliminal message that a black man could not play quarterback because he did not have the required skills, which his white counterparts possessed.

Another example is Al Campanas, executive for the Los Angeles Dodgers, who was candid and deliberate in his statement about the lack of cerebral ability in black athletes in high profile leadership positions. This assertion of white superiority is manifested throughout American history in the fields of science, culture and sports. Democrats should not be naïve and blithely assume things have changed. This concept will be exploited in the electoral process as long as it yields the results that those unscrupulous harbingers of hate like Karl Rove know are possible. Fear and hate are great motivators in a cowering and terrorized population.

The office of President of the United States, since its inception, has personified the aforementioned white male superiority mindset. The succession of Presidents has been overwhelmingly white males from the upper class of American society. While we have seen traditionally white male dominated positions both public and private undergo a transformation, the Presidency is the last bastion of white male superiority. With that being said, the question is: can a black man or any woman be elected President at this point in time? The answer, sadly, is - NO.

To buttress our point let's look at the recent high profile election between DLC Democratic candidate Harold Ford Jr., a black conservative Democrat, running for the Senate in Tennessee against a white Republican. To win the race the Republican machine ran that age-old racist stereotype that D.W. Griffith exploited in the first movie blockbuster, Birth of A Nation, where black men were sexually accosting a white woman. This type of sexual liaison lies at the core of white supremacy doctrine and has precipitated many race riots and attacks on blacks - i.e. Emmett Till, a teenager in Mississippi, who was brutally beaten to death for whistling at a white woman.

Jessie Jackson, during his Presidential campaign also witnessed similar subliminal inferences and often openly racist statements about his ability to lead. Black Presidential candidate Congresswoman Shirley Chisolm of New York was subjected to this notion as well as the gender bias inculcated in the typical American voter. The sexist stereotypes that haunted Congresswoman Chisolm were also brought to bear against Vice Presidential Candidate Geraldine Ferraro, however, with Italian racist overtones. The efficacy of her ability was constantly being discussed within the context of the patriarchal framework; that she was not masculine enough to lead and make difficult decisions.

This is what corporate conservative Republicans will use against Hillary or Barrack if either one are chosen as the Democratic nominee. If either of these candidates is nominated, the Republicans will resurrect Lee Atwater from the grave to mount a campaign that will dig into the dark side of the American psyche. So, that raises the question, what would be the most logical and strategic choice for progressive, liberal and working class men and women? You got it - John Edwards. Senator John Edwards is the candidate whom corporate conservative Republicans fear the most.

Let's look at the facts bluntly and honestly. Edwards would be their toughest opponent for all of the unfortunate reasons we have stated and the good reasons he has put forth in his policy positions and his work as a lawyer protecting citizens from corporate abuse.

The Republican machine has already made this assessment and that is why they working over time in both the print and visual media to persuade Democrats to support Hillary or Barrack as the Democratic nominee. This is the inconvenient truth we must come to terms with.

Endorsed and published by
Ahjamu Makalani, Jo Olson and Brad Parker
July 27th, 2007

Posted by: amakalan2002 | August 6, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Well the media always gets it wrong and they seem to have already anointed Clinton and Obama, It's actually sickening. I hope Edwards wins it just to prove those idiots wrong again.

Posted by: graciejane4 | August 5, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is the candidate for real change. Clinton and Obama are just triangulating Ivy League lawyers.

Posted by: VPaterno | August 5, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrite poll:

Hillary 50%
Edwards 30%
Richardson 10%
Obama 5%
Dodd/Biden 5%
Rest did not matter

Whoever says that Edwards is the best must be a trial lawyer or a moron who cant read between the lines. Hillary is beyond belief. She thinks nothing can shake her. Infact all this bloggers will end up as LOOOOOSEERs. She will kick them in the rear. BO must rise and expose her just like he did it the debate. he deserves the CinC job. And he is a decent guy. Knowledgable and not afraid of straight talk. Listen to him address the blacks. He tells them to stand and choose a better life unlike the smart rhetoric HRC plays and making them couch potatoes and live on benefits, thus turning every tax payers money to trash. Helpppppppp...

Posted by: paulchacko | August 5, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrite poll:

Hillary 50%
Edwards 30%
Richardson 10%
Obama 5%
Dodd/Biden 5%
Rest did not matter

Posted by: paulchacko | August 5, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The Wapo commenting system sucks. It even got my name wrong. It's mnuez, not "mnuezblue" you corporate bastards who need all my info for advertising. Anyhow...

Yah, so I hate all the candidates. I think that they're all dirty to the soul and personally corrupt - but it's obvious as hell that the best of the bunch is Edwards.

I can't even see the question about it.


Posted by: mnuezblue | August 5, 2007 6:47 AM | Report abuse

It appears that you missed General Wes Clark's Friday morning speech. Here it is, and, folks, count the applause:

Posted by: EllenBedlington | August 4, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

EDWARDS PROFILE: All you so called educated bumps, look t Eddy. He is a lawyer and that too trial lawyer. Is he so sensitive about the poor. Well, ask him how much he took as percentage for cases he won. Then when a man has enough money, there is nothing more satisfying than POWER. Thats how this game is played. Same with Hillary too. OBAMA: I can sense a little bit of decency but I still know deep in a man lies the desire to be worshipped. But among all the lot, BO is the best. Things that are done in secret reveals who a person is. Thats why we know who Hillary is and same about Eddy and his hedge funds. If Eddy could raise 50 million thru fund raising, boy he would never even sing this tune about lobbyists. WHO IS HE TRYING TO FOOL> EVIDENTLY THE EDUCATED IDIOTS IN THE PULPIT AT KOS. When a candidate says a contorted thing, smart folks should ask the tough questions about their contarsting actions. I HATE LOBBYISTS AND I HOPE FOR A BETTER TOMORROW. I cant vote but as an outsider I hope people have the guts and strength to put a new face and fresh air like BO. I am also glad that folks asked BO about his liquid coal vote.

Posted by: paulchacko | August 4, 2007 11:21 PM | Report abuse

All these chatter about facts. Learn to counter a candidate by exposing their hypocrisy. Eddy talks about lobbysists. He is singing a toally diff tune since he never could raise the money and knows that he needs to draw BO and HRC down in the money game. He is a true lawyer and a liar. If he cared for the poor. I ask the question, what percentage did he take from his cases when the fee should only be nominal as to the decency of the court. Instead they eat millions and leave the pateint with bare minimum. Secondly, things which are done in secret in the past reveals who a person is. How can he explain his hedge fund activites. Will he stop taking those contributions. REMEMBER, first every man needs money. But after you get that ALL A PERSON NEEDS IS POWER. Thats what they all want. But give it to a guy who atleast left a lucrative offer to serve people. Thats why I like BO. He is what he is. HRC is all things to all who can pay her just like hubby Billy. He just needs some extra goodies interms of "personal" favors. All are liars but I cant understand how EDDY blames HRC while he does the same on the other side. Why is lobbying an issue now?. BO took up the matter and EDDY now realizes this is an issue coz ppl started talking about it. Thats why he returned some cash which he knew will get him in trouble. Not becos he wanted to, he had to. HRC is snart enuff to think she can win cos ALL ESTABLISHMENT WILL VOTE FOR HER and there is nothing you / I can do about it. Simple ppl like us can rise up and make a diff and lets make a decent guy come in as OUR PRESIDENT. I am active in politics despite the fact I cannot vote. I hope you all can put BO in office. CHEERS

Posted by: paulchacko | August 4, 2007 11:16 PM | Report abuse

DID NOT FINISH MY PREVIOUS POST... So I am gald that someone asked BO the coal question. But one must also understand, b/n OIL from mid east and liquid coal, I prefer US stuff if we plan not to rely on Mid east. Thats the only reason. Remember, when you talk with so much rhetoric, its vital to have a feasible plan. I hop thats why BO thought of coal. KOS FOLKS rise up and challenge me or at least challenge the candidates, esp HILL and EDDY who seem to be singing diff tunes each time. Ask Eddyif he would do the same for hedge funds and policy on tort reform. Not a single person in DNC will rise up against the trial lawyers cos they make up more than half of the contributions. I guarantee you, the health system is destined for a collapse here. Nationalised system will work in all countries becos there is no trial lawyer dictating terms. I can categorically say this since I am a physician who has practiced medicine in US and abroad. I want everyone to be covered but with no trial lawyers dictating terms. You will see the diference.

Posted by: paulchacko | August 4, 2007 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Edwards did not only vote for the war, he cosponsored the resolution enabling it! He is also make very threatening statements about Iran when he talks to Israel. Read here:

However he does at least admit that he was wrong on Iraq and he is not in the corporate pockets as deeply as Hillary. Obama/Edwards has a nice ring to it.

Posted by: George14 | August 4, 2007 10:44 PM | Report abuse

In watching the debate, Edwards performed well. I believe he would make the perfect Vice Presidential candidate for Barack Obama.

Sen. Obama really blew everyone away. Hillary Clinton seemed like an amateur. Cliton can say words, but they often seemed devoid of meaning. We all know in elections, it's not what you believe, but how believe it.

Go to

For a viewing of true leadership in action.

Posted by: tates1a | August 4, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Politicians ignore bloggers at their PERIL! or

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | August 4, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Yes - Balz is definitely pro-Hillary - as is most of the CORPORATE media.

Posted by: annefrank | August 4, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Why would a candidate sell her $oul to Murdoch - a man whose media machine led the march to impeach her husband??

Hillary needs Murdoch's vast media influence to continue promoting her 24/7 and smearing Edwards.


Posted by: annefrank | August 4, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Evidently it must have been Balz who is the Hiliary fan because Vargas is the one who wrote this Edwards piece.

Mr Vargas - Why isn't your joint article with Balz more about Edwards? Does Mr. Balz hold seniority?

Posted by: pmorlan1 | August 4, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Evidently Balz & Vargas don't think it's Edwards country. Their article in the WaPo is predominatly about Hiliary. Big surprise. For them it's ALWAYS about Hiliary. And no offense to this Daily Campaign Diary but the Balz/Vargas article is the one that will be more widely read.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | August 4, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to hear that Edwards was well received at the Yearly Kos. My boyfriend and I are big fans of Edwards. What a shame that the National media feels so threatened by him that they go out of their way to marginalize his candidacy. Hopefully there will be enough local media coverage to overcome this disgraceful behavior by the national media.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | August 4, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm a 60 year old engineer and an Edwards supporter, to. The reason is pretty obvious, but ISN'T being reported by the Post or other media outlets. It was Barak Obama that blew the whistle on Hillary Clinton. She is part owner of an outsourcing company and she and Bill have lots of money invested in firms that bring in H1-B workers from India to displace Amercian engineers and computer programmers. Why on earth is she doing this when the DOL estimates that more than 20% of our own engineers are ou of work? Not just that, but she actually heads up an Indian influence group in the Senate, gets a considerable amount of her money from Indian companies and outsourcing firms and was called "The Senator From India" by a grateful Indian politician THIS YEAR! No one seems to understand the short and long term menace of outsourcing and guest worker programs like John Edwards. Certainly, Hillary and Senator Kennedy, who added a rider to the recently defeated immigration bill to INCREASE the number of H1-B visas, do not. It no wonder, then, that bloggers, American compute and technology experts, are outraged at Clinton and KENNEDY and Dodd and Richardson, all partisipants in selling us out. These fools admitted the mess they have created when they introduced legislation o provide long term unemployment for technology workers displaced by their very actions. I, and every other engineer I kow of, was *insulted* by this. We don't want a government handout. We want our jobs back and we want an end to allowing ciorporations to replace us with what amounts to indentured servants. A very oublic warning to them, here. This election is in its early stages. What you people have done is going to cost you dearly. We will haunt you like you have never imagined for taking us so much for granted. I imagine Hillary and her handlers know this by now. Senator Kennedy, for another, thinks he has a safe seat. Think again! We're angry and we want the H1-B program and all similar visas ENDED!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 4, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is the most direct candidate at telling it like it is. He doesn't triangulate, or use the language of false compromise, and I think that's why Democratic activists and bloggers resond so well to him.

Posted by: sfmandrew | August 4, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was fantastic and well-received at the event, I thought. I was expecting a less-than-friendly reception from the bloggers in attendance, but most people I spoke to said they're warming to her, and will support her enthusiastically if she is the nominee.

Posted by: cali_snowboarder | August 4, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Whoa!! Stop the presses!!! "Nutcases love Nuts" !! Now there is a non-surprise.

Posted by: pjvm | August 4, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

No surprise here. Edwards is a moron and bloggers are morons. Perfect fit.

Posted by: FridayKnight | August 4, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm an Edwards backer and am delighted to see him doing well among the Kos crowd. Like lightgrw, I have been disappointed by the mainstream media's insistence that this is strictly a two-candidate race. Is it a way to keep media travel expenses down? Are Edwards' stances too populist for many in the media power structure, who'd feel more comfortable having Hillary and Barack's Ivy League buddies in charge? The question is, how does Edwards' camp get this support to other areas of the party where he has been lagging (outside of Iowa)? Perhaps Clinton and Obama's infighting will effectively cancel each other out, leaving Edwards above the fray.

Posted by: VPaterno | August 4, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I never understood why the mainstream media wanted this to be a two person race between Hillary and Obama. They never gave Edwards a chance it seems. Hopefully a few papers will pick up on this story and show that there are plenty who still feel Edwards is the best candidate out there.

Posted by: lightgrw | August 4, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Edwards might be saying the right things for the left right now, but is it consistent with his Senate voting record? I don't think so. Remember, Edwards helped write the Patriot Act and he voted for the war. I remember him as being a centrist, but has now changed his tune. He is a smart lawyer, but for me that doesn't make a good leader. He just doesn't have it. There's that tinny feeling to him.

Posted by: goldie2 | August 4, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"I wasn't there live, but I watched the stream and it was clear from it that Obama is hugely popular with that group as well. He got the best response of the event when told Hillary she was wrong to say that lobbyists give money out of the public interest. Edwards clearly did well, but so did Obama."

This doesn't mean the Edwards is necessarily right as there are plenty of environmental, union, health care, and veterans lobbyist among other types that give money out of the public interest for causes that benefit the public interest.

Posted by: Cord1 | August 4, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is our man ! Has his own opinions based apon What John Q Citizen has to say !
HE LISTIONS with his mouth close !
Not With It.

Posted by: mgilfoy | August 4, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Edwards consistently wins those straw polls because the thing about the bloggers is because they are a lot more "INFORMED" than the overall electorate.

That's why Obama and Clinton can't just go in front of this audience and receive applause with pandering or platitudes. Most of those at YearlyKos know all about the candidates and what they are up to and what their politics is.

They aren't going to be sweet talked or just enamored by the image of Clinton or Obama as a credible female and minority candidate.

That's not enough for people who actually know where the candidates stand on the issues.

Posted by: OEST | August 4, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Actually, John Edwards got the best response of the event when he got the rousing standing ovation that knocked out the video stream for about 5 minutes when he first started talking about lobbyists.

Posted by: OEST | August 4, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't there live, but I watched the stream and it was clear from it that Obama is hugely popular with that group as well. He got the best response of the event when told Hillary she was wrong to say that lobbyists give money out of the public interest. Edwards clearly did well, but so did Obama.

Posted by: cmss1 | August 4, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company