Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Fights to the Finish


Edwards' closing argument is as pugnacious as it comes. (Bloomberg News).

By Dan Balz
DES MOINES -- For the final days in the Iowa contest, John Edwards has shed his blue jeans and open-collar shirt and put on a suit and tie -- and a pair of brass knuckles.


VIDEO | washingtonpost.com video of Edwards campaigning in Boone, Iowa.

Often the forgotten man in Iowa's three-way Democratic battle, Edwards is on the move. Independent analysts see his support firming up. Advisers to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe he might win the caucuses on Thursday -- although their views should be discounted because both Clinton and Obama would rather see Edwards win if they can't.

Four years ago, Edwards closed out Iowa in a rush. Had the campaign gone on a few more days, he might have won the caucuses. His second-place finish was almost as surprising as John Kerry's victory.

Nobody in the race here understands the rhythms of campaigns any better than Edwards and nobody is more ruthlessly focused on closing the deal than the former trial lawyer and senator. This time he's trying to make it all the way, knowing that he cannot afford to lose here on Thursday night.

But it is his message that is most remarkable. No thought here of finishing on a sunny and positive note, as he did four years ago. His "America Rising" theme is not a variation of "Morning in America."

It is a call to arms that is raw and angry, populist and pugnacious. It is a message that is as exhausting and is it confrontational. It is a message makes Al Gore's "people versus the powerful" seem tame and timid in comparison.

One Edwards supporter, departing after a big rally in Des Moines on Saturday night, said he hasn't heard a message as passionate or strong since Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign.

Nice clothes aside, Edwards has turned street-fighter for the final stretch run. His message can be boiled down to a single word -- "Fight!" -- which he repeats over and over and over and over again: Fight. Fight. Fight. Fight.

Edwards has rolled out anecdotes he never used in the past to make it all the more personal. They conjure up images that hardly square with his slight frame and good looks. He was, as he now explains, a brawler as a kid, taking on bullies the way he later took on corporations and insurance companies as a trail lawyer.

"Like many of you, I had to fight to survive," he told an audience of nearly a thousand people on Saturday night. "I mean really. Literally."

He describes the southern mill town where he grew up as a tough little place and tells the story of getting into a fight one day with an older boy. "Got my butt kicked," he says. When he got home, his father offered a stern lesson in life.

"I don't ever want to hear, son, about you starting a fight," he says his father told him. "But you listen to me and listen to me clearly. I don't want to ever hear that you walked away from one. Because if you're not willing to stand up for yourself and if you're not willing to fight, no one will stand up for you."

The enemy he sees is corporate America and corporate greed. His message seeks not to unite America but to finish what he describes as "an epic struggle" against forces that are, literally, killing America -- destroying jobs, holding down wages, putting ordinary Americans out of work or denying them medical care.

"You need somebody in the arena who will never back down," he says.

His language is over the top. He casts the challenges facing America in terms of morality and immorality. Speaking of tax policies that have encouraged companies to send jobs overseas, he says, "This is insanity -- I mean complete insanity."

The rich have an "iron-fisted grip" on democracy and won't let go through negotiations. "Anybody who suggests that we don't have an epic fight on our hands is living in Never-Never Land," he says.

He condemns wealthy corporate CEOs and "paid mercenaries" in Iraq with equal fervor. They are destroying the future of America.

"When will this stop?" he cried out at a rally in Knoxville, Iowa, on Saturday.

"With you!" a voice responds from the audience.

"With you and with me," he replied.

His rivals scoff at the angry populism coming from Edwards in these final days. They believe it is an invention, saying what Edwards now talks about bears little resemblance to the record he compiled in the Senate.

It is hypocritical, they say, coming from someone who grew rich in the courtrooms and who now lives in an enormous house in North Carolina. It is phony, they argue, to condemn big money and become the beneficiary of an independent expenditure campaign run by his former campaign manager.

None of this bothers Edwards. He knows what the critics say but he couldn't care less. He doesn't believe those attacks have hurt him. He believes he is connecting with the anger and unrest that many ordinary Americans feel about the state of the country and especially the way Washington works. He promises not to fix the system but to blow it up.

That message is strong brew and not for everyone, but it has found a following. Edwards is counting on enough Iowans -- those in the small towns and rural areas especially -- to buy into it to put him over the top on caucus night.

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 30, 2007; 1:15 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Dan Balz's Take , John Edwards  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Huckabee Would Criminalize Abortion Providers
Next: Iowa: Nearly 80,000 polled

Comments

Senza [URL=http://www.combiboard.com/galleria-figa-gratis.php] figa gli galleria gratis [/URL] quale.

Posted by: Polly | April 9, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

I am inspired by this story, but that inspiration is tempered by the reality of past experience. As long as money rules politics, voters will never be allowed to choose candidates. The process is flawed.

Now all the corporate power that really controls the American political process will go into character assassination mode against Edwards. The violent truth about us is that corporations and stockholders are more important than voters and taxpayers in America. We have to fight the biggest conflict of interest in the world. We live under a system of corporate fascism and we are all like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s.

Posted by: StarkeySF | January 2, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the only Democrat who can win the presidency in 2008. I've seen him upclose and he is the real thing. He spoke to my university class two years ago and was electric, intelligent and straight forward. How could any intelligent voter pass up Edwards for Obama, a person with lots of flash, little eperience and little substance. And, Democrats, most importantly, consider that Obama will not be elected in November 2008.

Posted by: afellow1 | January 2, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the only candidate who can unite this country. I read in a post that the middle class is disappearing. Wrong.
Ask any "middle class" family whose home has been foreclosed on, have lost their pensions, do not have health coverage, are sleeping on the streets. Ask the kids who are going hungry, ask the victims of Katrina who are being forced off their land by developers in order to make New Orleans more attractive and lucrative for the upper class.

The middle class is not disappearing. The middle class has disappeared.

We must take John Edwards' mantra, "fight, fight, fight" into polling stations with us.
We will HAVE to fight to win this one. The Republicans have a history of stealing elections and this is one they want badly.
They will not give up the power, to which they have fraudently gained access, easily. They will not go peacefully into the night.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Edwards is the man!

Posted by: Debbs | January 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

It is imperative that we take America back. The middle class is disappearing. We are not able to provide our children with the opportunities that were available 20-30 years ago. The middle class is necessary to a viable country. The American dream was not to become wealthy at the expense of other hard working Americans. The American dream was and is to be able to provide for our children and try to ensure their ability to do the same for their family. But this seems no longer possible...at least not without leadership willing to take a stand to restrengthen the backbone of our country, the middle class. Maybe a better way to define the middle class would be to include those who recognize the importance of hard work and the knowledge that hard work combined with fugility and a fair thoughtfulness will bring the necessary security to ensure that our position in life can not easily be compromised. This is no longer a Democrat or Republican issue, but is an American issue. It is important that we choose a candidate who is electable, and will work to see that America is given back to Americans. After reviewing the stands of all the candidates with this concern in mind, the best one is John Edwards. Our country needs him now.

Posted by: lands8327 | December 31, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

terryscannell

2:26 AM?!

Obama is smart and analytical, to be sure. I'm glad he opposed the war from the start, but I don't give him as much credit for it as some people do, simply because his opposition amounted to a state senator giving a brief speech. What he would have done had his vote counted is speculation.

At the same time, Edwards's vote for the war has been the subject of much chest-beating and mind-changing and apologizing. You can hold his original vote for the AUMF against him if you want, but the implication that his thinking and judgment are poor based on the fact that he thought one thing in the past and now thinks differently is that rigidly holding to a five-year old stance that has turned out to be bad policy - which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a Bushian tendency - is a good thing.

As for whether or not the fight will have an emotional side to it, you use the phrase "horrible wrongs" to describe the Bush presidency. That certainly sounds like a heartfelt opinion, and it's one shared by many Americans. Personally I think it would be best to harness this collective feeling alongside the necessary "hard work, thoughtfulness and focus."

(And is "hope" more of a piece with hard work and thoughtfulness, or is it an emotional position?)

Which to me leaves the question of whether or not Edwards is thoughtful and focused. Have you seen his website? He's got an 80-page PDF packed with ideas. His recent turn towards a more emotional stump speech may put some people off, but it should not obscure the fact that this guy has been an idea factory over the past four years. If you think that the anger Edwards brings to politics (and reacting angrily to economic injustice hardly seems pathological or inappropriate to me) comes at the expense of a thoughtful approach to governing, then I can see where you wouldn't want to vote for him.

But if analytical and focused are favorable characterizations of a candidate, then I think you ought to consider the one who brings these traits to the table while daring to speak about the "horrible wrongs" that have been visited upon this nation in recent years.

Posted by: voodoo_doc | December 31, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Why didn't Edwards fight for his constituents when he was Senator form North Carolina? The only time he showed up for work was when the trial lawyers needed his vote. When the dotcome bubble burst around the Raleigh-Durham area and tens of thousands of us were laid off Edwards was the only member of the delegation who didn't show up to help. He was off in Iowa running for president. He is sorry, phony and has no honor or integrity. There is a good reason he did not run for re-election in North Carolina--he would have lost.

Posted by: hrumphgrumble | December 31, 2007 6:31 AM | Report abuse

vodooo honors me with a reply...thank you.

I know it will be a fight. I would be less than honest to say that Obama's lack of experience is not an issue. I too have wondered if he would be tough enough. I have given this a good deal of thought.

Here is what I think. I have some experience in this some years ago now. One cannot imagine the pressure, the lack of sleep, the crappy food, the infighting, the people pulling at you that all these people are under.

When people are under pressure like this they will tend to do what they naturally do. Hillary has gotten more rigid, McCain has come out swinging, Hukabee has turned to God, Mitt just seems to make more stuff up.

What has impressed me as I watch Obama is that he has a rather calm analytical approach. He seems to get it right the first time unlike Hillary or Edwards...like on the war for example. This ability to stay calm in a storm, lead through a keen intellect and with a hopeful message is why I favor him. What we need is a fighter who has clarity of thought. John is a fighter to be sure...but..his thinking and judgment are suspect given his initial support of the war for example.

I will work for and donate to any of the three or Biden if they are nominated.

We will have a fight to be sure...but..there is no need to raise our collective voices. It is not emotion...its just undoing the horrible wrongs that have been done in the last 7 years. That will take hard work, thoughtfulness and focus..not tons of emotion.

To the Republicans who have posted and attempted to support the pillaging of our wonderful country and its people...I say...its time for a real debate. I do not think the people will be fooled again with SwiftBoats Gay bashing, illegal immigrants or even the magic words..."911".

Terry

Posted by: terryscannell | December 31, 2007 2:26 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards was successful as a trial lawyer and that's a bad thing because he won cases? What kind of logic is that. Now I know why we suffer as a country. We can't even give Jack his jacket despite how much we don't like him. I mean I hate the New England patriots. but i'd be an idiot for not recognizing their greatness where the 2007 NFL regular season is concerned. WOW! Now I've heard it all.

Posted by: Gharza | December 31, 2007 1:47 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats have several good candidates and any of them will restore America's place in the world. It help to ease the nightmare created by George Bush, a man who clearly wasn't up to the job. The number of caucus goers in the Democratic side may be double that of the Republicans in Iowa, a major battleground state. The Republicans have nothing to offer this country as the last seven years have proven. Tax cuts for the rich, corporate interests before the middle class, a failed foreign policy, and a war without end in Iraq. The Republican race is really turning nasty. So long Whigs, I mean Republicans!!!

Posted by: georgiaguy | December 31, 2007 12:52 AM | Report abuse

In the debate vs. Cheney, Edwards was no doubt handcuffed by the timid Kerry campaign handlers.

I'm not so disenchanged with Edwards' wealth. After all, he's advocating tax policies that will cost him serious dough.

And since there is no safety net in this country, if you get rich you want to stay rich.

Posted by: mthand111 | December 30, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Henry is at Agincourt, and he's ready.

Posted by: landscape_vision | December 30, 2007 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Beg to differ but the only one truly ready to lead on day 1 is Sen Joe Biden... every news outlet was chasing him for an interview the day Mrs, Bhutto was assasinated to get a true update on what exactly happened and how the US should rspond! ... he has the foreign policy expereince to dig us out of the hole bush got us into ....edwards has a lot to offer BUT joe biden is the real deal... presidential, well spoken and is very bright ,,, he also has the right credentials to lead.....think biden...he is the real deal !

Posted by: delgirl27 | December 30, 2007 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Know what? Some of you Obama supporters remind me of white lib students for McCarthy in '68. They HATED Bobby. God how they hated him, threw stuff at him at his campaign rallies.

It's too late for hope, folks. Way too late I'm afraid.

Posted by: landscape_vision | December 30, 2007 11:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm telling you, Edwards is the ONLY candidate that keeps my attention-and I am not saying this because I work for his campaign-I sincerely believe, based on all my knowledge of the USG, and also, of the world, that John Edwards would be THE CANDIDATE MOST RESPECTED BY THE WORLD-and you see "the world" is very important-we have to regain stature, we have to regainn a vision, and moral authority-we do not, at all, have that now, and the fact of the matter is, we've had too much Clinton-it IS time for a change.

But I know, instinctively (and I'm almost never wrong in my political predictions-yeah, I know how that sounds, but it happens to be true) the American people are going to be very pleasantly surprised at what John Edwards could do for the poor and struggling middle class in this country, in other words, the forgotten people. I'm telling you, he will introduce, and successfully initiate, some revolutionary changes-like a form of universal health care, among other things. I see him universally liked and respected around the world, much like President Clinton, was, and still very much is.

And Edwards is the ONLY candidate, I sincerely believe, who can beat a Republican candidate. If Hilary wins the nomination, Democrats like myself will vote for her, but not because she is our first choice.

And don't even get me started on Barack Obama-that's a mistake from the word go. If he ever got into the WH-he would be throwing imperious hissy fits-I see this about him, because he is, at heart, very green, way too inexperienced for this job, but more seriously, he's too tightly wound-he has "issues" - come back in another 16 years, Obama, and then we'll see.

But Obama needs to stand down and get out of the way, and let Hilary and John fight it out. And you know what? Edwards will win that fight, if the American public gives him half a chance.

As far as Joe Biden goes, he's got a zillion "issues" that make him unelectable as a President, period, end of story. John Edwards has NO ISSUES, ONLY PLUSES, NO MINUSES.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | December 30, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Among the three, I prefer Edwards. But it seems that he has little chance to win the caucuses. Go fight, fight ,fight!

Posted by: chenjunbin101 | December 30, 2007 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Go Edwards!
He is the most electable of the candidates. (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/11/tue6ampoll.pdf)
He has the most integrity of the candidates. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/NEWS09/712300338/-1/RSS22)

With good reason, this is the candidates that the Republicans fear the most.
He's going to do it. Go John Go!

Posted by: Spiralshell | December 30, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

The only thing I could not get over it is that Edwards did not demolish big Dick Cheney during
the 2004 debate. He had the ability and the facts to paint Cheney as and greedy war profiteer but decided not to do it. Today he seams to be unafraid to fight and tell the truth, I liked it.

Posted by: bluelagoon21 | December 30, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

What about Edwards fliping on his pledge to not allow lobbyists to work for him and no special interests.
Now he has 527s and has flipped on the lobbyists because of Trippi.
Seems this man is always changing his positions.
The guy is looking to me like he is not true to his words. That he is just playing the part of a populist.
And what about the half million from Mrs. Mellon, who never gave a political contribution and is 97, and her atty now has power of atty over her and gave the money to Edwards.
Politico has been breaking these daily.
Edwards is looking to be a very different man from one he plays on the trail.

Posted by: vwcat | December 30, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

terryscannell writes that "if those who we would talk to are not willing to change then...well its time for a fight."

Well, guess what? "Those who we would talk to" ain't gonna change, since change would entail lower profits. Hope all you want. Obama is not going to make corporations want lower profits. No one is. Your condition has been met. It's time for a fight. Vote Edwards.

Posted by: voodoo_doc | December 30, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Re: Rat

Sorry, buddy, the name calling doesn't work any more. Roll out all the cheesy and cheap attacks that you're used to using. Don't mean nothing. We are tired of this kind of crap and there is a chance, finally, for a change.

Yes, I know, always a mistake to attack the troll. Just a little sick and tired of the trolls.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 30, 2007 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Republicans know that they can't win against Hillary, and they aren't sure they can win against Edwards, but they are sure that if Obama is the candidate they can win the whitehouse and probably take back congress.

Democrats have warm hearts but soft heads. They fall for Republican tricks evey time. I remember hearing after the last election that much of the money sent to Nader actually came from Republican controlled polticial groups.

I have heard repeated rumors that the same thing is now happening with Obama.

I'd love to have a Beer with Obama, but don't think he stands a chance in a national election.

It's clear that's why the Republicans want to run against him.

My first choice is Hillary Clinton.
My second choice is Joe Biden.
My third choice is John Edwards.

My last choice would be any of the Republicans, but that's what we're going to wind up with if Obama is the candidate.

If we nominate Obama, we're going to lose both the whitehouse and congress.

America can't afford that.

Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Edwards' message isn't 'over the top' at all.

How much legislation with negligible popular support gets passed by Congress each year that wouldn't have even been introduced if some corporate interest wasn't behind it?

How much legislation with plenty of popular support never makes it to the floor of Congress for a vote, because it would upset some corporation's or industry's applecart?

Or how much popular legislation, when it looks like it's going to get to the floor of Congress, finds itself the subject of a well-crafted, well-financed media campaign, paid for by deep-pocketed corporate interests, engineered perfectly to sow just enough doubt to give cover to Congresscritters who'd really rather vote against it, knowing that their constituents will probably forget, but the corporate lobbyists won't?

You think the Bankruptcy Deform Bill passed Congress a few years ago because we, the people, were clamoring for it? Haw haw haw.

You think the recent farm bill was full of financial goodies for agribusinesses because we, the people, desired it? Gimme a break.

You think we haven't noticed the way the Iraq War has become a gravy train for war profiteering by numerous corporations?

You think we haven't noticed the way the Bush Administration and GOP Congress from 2003-06 worked hand in hand to gut laws and regulations that cost big businesses, but protected us?

You think we haven't noticed that things have only marginally improved under the new Democratic Congress?

If you keep track of what's happening, Occam's Razor practically screams that the simplest explanation is that ancient political principle: money talks. And when money talks, your Congresscritter listens.

I'm talking about you, Steny Hoyer. And you, Al Wynn. And you, Tom Davis.

Posted by: rt42 | December 30, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

My man, John Edwards. Give him a chance US, I think you'll really be quite pleased with the results. He's got it all, and a very nice family as well.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | December 30, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Just how does Edwards hope to benefit the middle class when he seeks to erode the competitiveness of the job producing engine?

We aren't Venezuela or Russia or even Norway floating on a sea of oil. You simply can't redistribute your way to prosperity.

Posted by: todd | December 30, 2007 9:29 PM | Report abuse

If you look at the national polling data, John McCain beats both Clinton and Obama. John Edwards beats everyone. Period. He is obviously the choice of the majority of the voting public. So why isn't he the one featured day in and out in the newspapers? Instead, we are treated to Hillary's mug being shoved down our throats when most of us wont vote for her if she is the nominee. Can it have something to do with corporate ownership of newspapers, with shallow yuppie reporters too frightened to write anything other than what they are told. Look, I'm sick and tired of reading and hearing about Romney and Clinton and Guliani and all of the other corporate hacks. These idiots brought us the disastrous bankruptcy legislation, they stood by while corporations outsourced more than 40 million jobs, they have allowed poison drugs in from Indian pharmaceutical companies, dangerous toys from China, and overseen the export r outright theft (y, mostly, Indian H1-B workers) of our most critical technologies. None of them even deserves to hold an elected office, much less be seriously considered for the Presidency. A vote for anyone other than John Edwards is a vote isn't just stupid, it's a form of suicide.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 30, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse


Edwards has what it takes to PUSH the change that is so desperately needed in this country.

Posted by: kfite | December 30, 2007 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yeah, Edwards is the great fighter who ran away from fighting for his incumbeat US Senate seat in 2004 to seek a national Democratic career, because Edwards had no stomach for mixing it up with Richard Burr, who easily put away Erskine Bowles, a warm body recruited by the Dems!

Edwards talks a big fight, but walked away from fighting to keep that Senate seat!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 30, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Is Edwards "over the top," or The Washington Post? You make it sound like someone would have to be nuts to find fault with corporate greed. But look around you. Are you not reading your own reports? Let's go back a few years and move forward. Enron, Worldcom, Halliburton, Abramoff, the environmental crisis, the mortgage crisis... Is it 1984 already? Do we forget our news as soon as we write it? Now that's crazy.

Posted by: WildaHughes | December 30, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

So why didn't John Edwards fight for us--his constituents--when he was a one-term Senator from North Carolina? When tens of thousands of us were laid off in the Raleigh-Durham area at the end of the dotcom bubble where was Edwards? I saw every other member of the state's delegation pitch in to fight for us except Edwards who couldn't be bothered by his office. He was too busy raising money from trial lawyers and tending to business in Iowa where he was already running for president. John Edwards is no friend of the workingman. He is fake and phony. His punk ass doesn't care about anybody or anything except his own sorry trifling self.

Posted by: hrumphgrumble | December 30, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

As a Nutmegger I am partial to Chris Dodd, and find him and Biden to be the most seasoned and rational of the entire bunch. But homestate bias aside, Edwards is far more compelling this year than in '04. I don't for a moment think any of them is truly sincere in most of what they say, but at least Edwards speaks with passion and actually speaks of real issues, rather than Hillary's "what ifs" and Obama's pathetc, hollow vision of "hope" with no specifics of how to bring it to reality. I won't say Edwards is the best candidate, but he's definitely the most articulate and compelling...

Posted by: pequod1021 | December 30, 2007 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Zukermand wrote:

"Dan Balz typed:
'They conjure up images that hardly square with his slight frame and good looks.'

because Dan Balz is a washed up old prick."

Very intelligent. Zukermand. Doesn't anyone moderate this board?

Posted by: jaj | December 30, 2007 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is the most electable Democratic candidate, and he understands what needs to be done to turn around the injustices the middle class now lives with.

Posted by: GregButler | December 30, 2007 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Any Democratic candidate would make a great President compared to the current chimp and the RepubliCON candidates.

No more RepubliCONs...EVER!

Posted by: camera_eye_1 | December 30, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is a Populist with nothing to lose. No other candidate can, or is willing, to take that stance. Just ask yourself: Where will Hillary and Barak be should they lose the primary? In the Senate. Where will Edwards be? More politics and another run in 2012? I don't think that's in the cards.

Clinton and Obama have a political contingency plan. Edwards has a go for broke plan. Clinton and Obama steer to the middle of the road. Edwards has his eye on the people in the economic ditches along the road.

Interestingly, we have a chance to choose a candidate with everything to win for us and nothing really to win for him/herself. Edwards is looking for a place in history as an anti-corporate power, pro-health care revolution, out of Iraq now leader. Nothing "careful," nothing "there's always the next election," about any of the detailed stances he takes on the big, divisive issues of the day, the issues and problems of the many days to come beyond the days of electioneering compromising.

Populists are often labeled by the unthinking as "demagogues." But you're not a demagogue until you fail or refuse to deliver on your promises. Edwards appears to be an individual who is at a point in his life's arc where delivering on promises, programs, proposals is more important than hedging and compromising his deeper beliefs and values in order to gain the attention of pundits, bloggers, TV personalities, and the moneyed classes.

Democrats talk "change." Will Democrats vote for it when it comes at them in shirt sleeves and a smile?

--gary daily
Terre Haute, Indiana,
Home of Eugene V. Debs

Posted by: garyd63 | December 30, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz typed:
"They conjure up images that hardly square with his slight frame and good looks."

because Dan Balz is a washed up old prick.

Posted by: zukermand | December 30, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

To those who espouse the absurd notion that the income redistribution of populism or class warfare is bad, what would you call the corporate welfare policies of government over the last few decades? Trickle down economics has resulted in the top 1% taking over 21% of the national income. Obviously income distribution has only worked in one direction so far. The rich taking it all is so out of wack that any measures to try to correct this gross imbalsnce is way over due. This is why Edward's populism resonates with the masses, and it is long past due given the just anger in the population at large.

Posted by: bastanow | December 30, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to feel bad about Edwards getting rich. He got rich at the hands of many weathly corporations. I think it's been a lifelong plan to rise to the top of a well paid profession against the rich to become rich enough to fight the rich at a higher level. I actually believe if enough Joe Average's like others and me vote for him and push him to the top, he will in the end take down those rich people who have in their greed pushed many of us out of the middle class; those of us whose parents moved up to the middle class under Roosevelt and Truman only to slowly be pushed back by succeeding leaders. I think Bill Clinton came from the same stock, but didn't have the same fire in his belly to pull others up with him. As for Hillary, she came from a much more wealthy background, and although she believes in the little guy too, she doesn't have that same zeal as Edwards to tackle the rich people by the ankles.

Posted by: Forever39z | December 30, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

As a Nutmegger I am partial to Chris Dodd, and find him and Biden to be the most seasoned and rational of the entire bunch. But homestate bias aside, Edwards is far more compelling this year than in '04. I don't for a moment think any of them is truly sincere in most of what they say, but at least Edwards speaks with passion and actually speaks of real issues, rather than Hillary's "what ifs" and Obama's pathetc, hollow vision of "hope" with no specifics of how to bring it to reality. I won't say Edwards is the best candidate, but he's definitely the most articulate and compelling...

Posted by: pequod1021 | December 30, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is the biggest phony in a year full of campaign phonies. This clown gets a half-mil from an offshore sub-prime mortgage hedge fund and poses as a working class hero. He's got a starlet/film producer pregnant in a gated community.

A certain irreducible minimum of people, usually about one in five, believe in conspiracies and class warfare and are really stupid. Those are the ones Edwards cynically is aiming to exploit, like the stupid jurors he would con in courtrooms.

Dan Balz is another one of those loo-zers.

Posted by: djman1141 | December 30, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Eewwww, Who coughed up THAT nasty Hairball!

John "Pretty Boy" Edwards is through preening! Even with his De-Clawed Paws, he still has Teeth!

Pause- Hack-Hack, CCough! Hack(Final Hairball!)

OK Billary, (Obasama the "Other" Socialist, and soon to be Partner, on his Flank) Time for It!

MRrrooowwwwwwWW! Hst! Hissss! MmrroOWWWW!!
HSSTT! HisSSSS! MmrROowwowwowwowow!

Billary! That was not Fair! You don't have THOSE!!!

Mrowowow! Oww!

Posted by: rat-the | December 30, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

This country badly needs someone to stir things up. Maintaining the status quo of an endless, destructive war along with a rapidly deteriorating financial system fueled by short sighted greed on ALL levels is not acceptable.

The next few years are going to be tough on everyone:

We have to rebuild our foreign policy to effectively fight terrorism instead of maintaining conditions that encourage it's spread.

It's time to pay this country's bills.
The government and many of the citizens are awash in unsustainable debt that will cost all of us. Any further delay in paying this country's debts will make the pain worse for all of us.

Now you all tell me which candidate is going to make the tough, unpopular choices
that have to be made. Certainly not Hillary or the Republican candidates who only seem to offer a continuation of the mess we have now. Perhaps Edwards will be able to kick all of our passive butts into facing the mess we have been led into.

Posted by: winthropb1 | December 30, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The enemy is not corporate America. In making this broad strike, Edwards runs a deep risk of saying something that his audience doesn't understand, because they have not been prepared to know clearly what is happening to our country. The enemy? Corporate America without restraint, corporate America on steroids, corporate America without any strong union opposition and with a Congress which, from 1994 through 2006, gave corporations and giant wealth one boost after another, anything they wanted.

Unrestrained corporate America is set on a course to ruin the middle class and increase poverty. It is not, necessarily, because those who head corporations are evil. It is because they are just doing what they want to do, increase their profits anyway they can and ensure themselves huge salaries, bonuses, retirement packages, corporate jets and elite colleges for their offspring.

From the late 19th century into, say, 1960, Americans were trained to think of big business, big capital and big wealth as a threat to ordinary citizens. Now, Americans have been trained, by radio talk shows and other forums, to think that big capital creates wealth of which, someday, they might get a piece. Everyone wants to jump on the greed train before its too late (see: housing bubble, 2002-2005).

Edwards is singing the right song. His battle is to find the right tune in time to wake up America to what is being lost, to find a way to moderate the actions of business, at the extreme end, and to force a greater share of wealth to be spread to all of America. It will never happen voluntarily. No one on of corporate board or in a CEO suite is ever going to arrive at work one Monday say, "Hey, I think it is about time to give everyone a big raise, even if it hurts our performance numbers this quarter." Never.

Poverty in America, and around the world, is created, not accidental. The actions of government and corporations can enforce the conditions of poverty or, over time, help to bring about change. Industrialization, over decades, spread modest wealth because workers were paid well to make good products. There is a real possibility that we are headed toward being a third world type economy, with vast wealth at the top and almost nothing below.(As in Mexico.) TIME magazine, in an article on statistics about our nation, reported that the top 1% of Americans has an average annual income of 26+ million dollars, including capital gains. Out where the real people live, there are whole towns without that much income. This is not happening by accident.

If anything, Edwards needs to be even more pointed, more sharp, while trying, if every ounce of effort, to make it clear that is up to the American people to bring about change and to set us back on the course when everyone, or almost everyone, could share in progress and wealth.

Posted by: DougTerryterryreportcom | December 30, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

One word "PHONEY!"

I grow tired of the liberal Democrat cry babies and whiners.

The liberal Democrats are running on the
suggestion of 'change'. The change you will see is what is left of your paycheck when the liberal Democrats raise your taxes to an extremely high level to support their socialist programs.

Nowhere is the UN Constitution does it say that my hard earned money should be used to pay for another person life.

Socialism is the redistribution of wealth.

Some people are lazy and they chose not to work or contribute to society in any way.

Why should I pay for these people?

Posted by: BuffaloJim57 | December 30, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

FIGHT! That defines Edwards, and a FIGHTER is exactly what the Democrats need. Ned Lamont was a fighter, and although he didn't win his race, he showed the Democratic Party how to throw a punch. He was the man who energized Democrats to stand up for principal, and the man responsible for the Democrats' taking back Congress.

John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who has the guts to fight the far-right and to stand up for Americans who have been left out. He's the only candidate who has come up with a real and workable solution for universal health care. He's the anti-Hillary, who is snuggling up to Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

And finally a mainstream journalist who isn't afraid to write about Edwards and a mainstream journalist who finally "gets" him.

Give 'em hell, John!!

Posted by: sbgoldrick | December 30, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Edwards finished high in the Iowa caucus last election with the help of the 527's run by his former campaign aide to raise unregulated funds to run attack ads (yup he did it then too) and by making deals with other potentially non-viable candidates, like Kucinich for their supporters to align with Edwards at the caucus.

Posted by: Katy7540 | December 30, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Why do us DEMS think that Edwards by virtue of his southern accent will be able to carry the South..? He didnt even carry his own state, and not even his own Senatorial district....

The South is home to the country's most downtrodden, impoverished, yet he is a rich millionaire who claims that he's had to fight all his life?
LOL = Laugh Out Loud...

Iowans are finally allowing their true colors to show..
WHITE WOMAN
WHITE MAN
BLACK MAN

the white man wins again!

Obama 2008

Posted by: michaelg | December 30, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe that Edwards made his 55 million fighting for the little guy. He absolutely represents the rich in this country, not the poor. His Father worked in the mill, John didnt! No judge or jury would've ever ruled against the litte girl he represented who was disemboweled by a faulty swimming pool system, yet John takes her parents out on the campaign trail as an example of a difficult fight. Despicable! He has the least experience in public office than any other candidate, and has apologized for too many votes: The Iraq war, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Yucca Mt. Nuclear wasted dump. He hasnt held a public office position since he left the senate. John promised to fight the hedge fund companies in 2004, but earned $500,000 as consultant for Fortress, a known hedge fund company right after he lost the last election. Now he convinces voters he doesnt take campaign funds from special interests, but this "fighter" just cant stop the 527's his former aide has organized to run attack ads against his opponent. This is a replay of 2004 when his manager quit the campaign just before the Iowa caucus to form a 527. He just benefited from a $550,000 unregulated donation yesterday. I dont believe John is the one who is going to escape the swift boating in the general election or bring back HONEST government.

Posted by: Katy7540 | December 30, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Those who decry Edwards for fomenting "class war" are those whose ill-gotten privileges, wealth, and power were gained at the expense of the common citizen, and who will take it heavily in the purse in an Edwards administration. There has been class war for decades, and John Edwards did not start it. Edwards just wants, through tax policy and elimination of unfair subsidies, to take the big US corporations (who act as if they are headquartered anywhere but the US)and the plutocrats down a few notches. Go Edwards!

Posted by: sim55 | December 30, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

The populist message from Edwards is exactly what is needed in our time and to fix our government. For far too long our representatives have only been looking out for their own and the highest bidder's interests, and not for their constituents who voted them in. It really is a class war in which the very wealthy have had all the fire power for far too long. It is about time the masses arm themselves as well and fight to take our government back from the wealthy elites. Edwards is the best candidate to do this, and the closest there is to Lou Dobbs, one of the few true patriots in the public space.

Posted by: bastanow | December 30, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The pendulum has swung too far in favor of the wealthy and corporate America. The Bush administration has put this country in enormous debt, stagnated wages, created stealth inflation, wasted 5 years on Iraq and almost 7 on environmental issues.

Edwards is exactly what this country needs to get the majority of its citizens heading in the right direction. Obama and Clinton are exactly what the GOP want. They are candidates that will send out their constituents in droves.

Posted by: Juked | December 30, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thiele's post chiding Edwards supporters is a new millenium version of "What's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street." Of course, if we believed that completely we wouldn't be Edwards supporters, we'd be Republicans.

Fred warns that we'd better embrace corporations offshoring American jobs while cutting health care benefits or they'll do more of it. They might do more of it, but not with sweetheart deals given to them by Congress and made up for on the backs of working Americans.

As long as he is Googling, Fred should Google Teddy Roosevelt. We've been down this road before.

Posted by: jaj | December 30, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is a bare knuckle brawler. He is just what the country needs to unplug all those powerful and pampered interest who fattened at Uncle Sucker's trough the past several decades. The pay to play crowd don't like him and they will be labeling Edwards a class warrior. Needless to say the real class warriors, the plutocrats who run this country have just about made the middle class extinct and have pushed the bulk of the country to near borderline insolvency and those already on the bottom are destitute. I can't wait to read how bad Edwards is in the Washington Post. At least he appears to not be afraid to hold these elitist feet to the fire. If he wins seeing them squirm and whimper is not going to be a pretty sight but long over due. The fact he might win makes him a good choice in my book.

Posted by: bfc1949 | December 30, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is saying what so many of us are feeling -- we're "mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it anymore." Edwards is right. The corporate and big money interests have seized our government and are selling out America (lying us into war, selling off American jobs, etc., etc., etc.). They will NOT negotiate away that power. You need look no farther than the U.S. Senate. Republicans have not been willing to negotiate -- their strategy is to stonewall and blame the "Democrat controlled" Congress for inaction. Edwards is right -- we need someone who will fight for "We the People."

Posted by: rej123 | December 30, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Interesting comments here. My two cents: Hillary is far too much of a Washington insider to have the least desire to change much of anything. She's a veteran corporate shill who's quite satisfied with the way things currently run, thank you very much, and a second Clinton presidency would be a virtual mirror image of the first one -- i.e., GOP Light. She's also a gigantic lightning rod for hatred among conservatives, which gives any GOP candidate a disproportionate boost. Obama seems like a great guy and his rhetoric of reaching compromise is nice, but no corporate type is going to buy into it. The upper one percent have had their way since before the framing of the Constitution, and anyone who actually thinks they'd be willing to "compromise" the overarching power that they believe to be their quasi-aristocratic birthright without an epic battle is fooling him/herself. I simply don't think Obama has the stomach for that fight. America no longer works for most average people, and that's why Edwards is probably our best option. I seriously doubt he'll be able to make good on all of his campaign rhetoric, but he might just be able to alleviate a few of the biggest problems our nation faces due to his willingness to take on the entrenched interests. He's also the only candidate who will have even the slightest chance of scoring any electoral votes in the South, which could very well be the key to winning. As such, here's hoping for an Edwards-Obama ticket -- and here's to sending Phony Hil the Corporate-Sponsored Ice Queen back to whichever state she's claiming to be from this week!

Posted by: gretchengoes | December 30, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I am so hopeful when I hear John Edwards speak, he is the tonic this country needs now. We need to look inward and cure the ills at home. We have spent our children's money on the rest of the world conquering, bribing and demanding. We have the means to turn around this country we need a leader like John Edwards to get it done. I'm holding my breath and hoping it will come to be.

Posted by: kathie_lucas | December 30, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for finally not ignoring John Edwards. Edwards has paid dearly in this campaign for his honesty and commitment to the working class. Just look at this quote-
"He condemns wealthy corporate CEOs and "paid mercenaries" in Iraq with equal fervor. They are destroying the future of America."
Big Media hates anyone who speaks out for people. Big Media is telling us to elect another Republican so the corporate rape of America can continue. People know Big Media is a liar. That's why Big Media is losing credibility while John Edwards is climbing in this race.

Posted by: fishingriver | December 30, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I like Edwards, but I am afraid that we are in for more fighting if we continue on this path.

Democrats are so mad at Bush, that they want to get in there and clean house. But to clean house, you have to have some kind of compromise.

The very lobbyists Edwards wants to get out of town are the folks raising the millions of dollars for the Congressmen and women to retain their seats.

You have to bring all of these people to the table. I prefer Obama's approach of bringing everyone to the table on C-SPAN in full view of the world to see.

People dismiss this approach as too simplistic. But if we keep on in the fashion of fight, fight -- it will only be to the detriment of this country.

More gridlock, that what it seems like to me.

May the best man or woman win.


Posted by: askpeabody | December 30, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure the Republican dirty tricks committee is piling up dirt to heap on either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and if either of them wins the nomination the campaign for the general election could get ugly -- VERY ugly. I can't think of what they might be mounting up for a run against Edwards. They might have to take him on on the issues, and if that's the case I think Edwards has a clear advantage.

In the matter of going up against big business, it's not a question of being against capitalism, but against unregulated capitalism. Bush has filled the positions in regulatory agencies like the EPA, etc., with former members of industry who were in charge of skirting the regulations the agencies were set up to enforce. This is the kind of thing that has to be broken down. Future trade agreements with the rest of the world should be negotiated with protections for American jobs, or incentives for other countries to bring salaries and working conditions up to where American workers can compete on a level playing field. But the public will need to keep after him about these things, since he will not be popular with the business community on these issues.

Edwards beats the Republican challenger by a wider margin than either Hillary or Obama, according to most polls. That's important to consider, if you want a Democrat in office in January, 2009.


Posted by: d.scherman | December 30, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd like all you Edwards boosters to carefully consider what would happen to the U.S. economy if his rhetoric came to fruition in the form of formal corporate, tax and trade policy. Let me sum it up in two words: Unmitigated disaster. We should force corporations to pay the average employee more, right? Seems straightforward enough, huh? Well, corporations are etherial, profit-maximizing entities that naturally seek out the path of least resistance. Tell them to pay employees more and they'll just shrug their shoulders and move even more jobs off-shore. Keep in mind, they don't have to hire ANYONE in the U.S. You can't force them to, nor do they have to remain domiciled in the U.S. If Edwards makes conditions too insufferable, these companies can just leave -- and they'd be welcomed with open arms in London, Hong Kong, Shanghai or even Sydney.

Raise tariffs to "stimulate" American manufacturing? Google "Hawley-Smoot" or other similar legislative initiatives to see how famously they worked for the U.S. Candidly, Edwards populist pandering really is dangerous. The common man, bitter but not economically trained, eats up all his specious entreaties, oblivious to the new realities of the global economy. Education, technology and productivity keep the U.S. competitive in the world economic race. Edwards would spin us into deep recession, accelerating job losses AND busting the budget with his prolific array of new federal spending (e.g., healthcare, college aid, welfare).

Posted by: fred.j.thiele | December 30, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Obama has better governing approach in the time of globalization. This accusation that Obama has no experience in foreign policy are fully ungrounded, he has much better vision than others. I also believe that the fact that Obama is biracial sends the unifying message the country needs. But if Edwards is winning nomination, it would be also okay with me. So, would be with Kucinich, Richardson, and Gravel. But I still think that only Obama has this chance.

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 30, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Anger would not solve problems,agitation only adds more problems, the current tumultuous status of our country needs a cool headed and experienced leader like HRC, not an angitator like Edwards or a used car salesman like Obama.

Posted by: johnycheng1 | December 30, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

i think the top 3 dem candidates are all electable and that any one of them would win in the general election. the problems the dems had in the past probably aren't relevant, or even known, to today's voters. seems to me the voting population is quite a bit more sophisticated now, and more aware of the way they've been manipulated by the right, and the populist movement isn't getting any weaker as the middle class continues to be ignored. edwards should occupy a position of power in the dem party.

Posted by: e9999999 | December 30, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The "fighting in Washington" consists of rival gangs of pigs and parasites struggling over the spoils of a 30 year screwing of the American people. Edwards recognizes this and perhaps will do something about it.

He also happens to have the best plan for addressing the health care crisis in this country, perhaps the single most important issue at this time.

He is the one genuinely "self-made man" in the election. If you are measuring the candidates by character, as evidenced by the ability to deal with life's challenges, he wins hands down.

Definitely the best choice. Hopefully he will win in Iowa and the Democratic electorate will take a long look at him.

Posted by: mnjam | December 30, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hell will freeze over and Satan will be on ice skates before Obama is the candidate to run for President.

Posted by: whclayton | December 30, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama 08? Obama is only one step behind Hillary in corporate "take"..he says he is for change...but doen't name it, could he be a bit more specific...? Edwards at least names the change he wants to start with...where does Obama want to start...? I would vote for any of the Dem's over any of the Repugs....but Kucinich and/or Edwards is my first choice....the corporate strangle hold on politics and the public domain has got to stop...! Has Obama ever said the words "ANTI-TRUST" like Edwards has...?

Posted by: susannelsen | December 30, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

My previous post should have said "lousy president compared to Hillary"

Edwards would still be a good president and much better than any of the Republicans.

He's just not in the same league with Hillary.

She's in a completely different class of smarts, knowledge, and experience than any of the other candidates.

Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Edwards would be a lousy President, but a good attorney general.

If he doesn't piss Hillary off he might even have a shot at the VP slot.

Obama is the Dream candidate for the Republicans.

He's the only one that's not electable.

Posted by: svreader | December 30, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The author of this article says Edwards "is over the top.' I hardly think so. Edwards is saying what all the other candidates know but are afraid to say since they are all in the pocket of corporate America.

Corporations write our laws, erode our civil liberties, off-shore our jobs, and in their attempt to sell anywhere to anyone have sold out the Americans who built their economic empire with their sweat and the country that due to corporate gifts (both legislative and due to an infrastructure built by working class Americans) has empowered them.

Edwards is the candidate who best can steer us on a better course, even if Kucinich's platform is even more direct and bolder in its plan. The latter of course will not garner much of the vote, so you people of Iowa, vote Edwards and jump start the movement for We the People to take back our democracy,

Posted by: MichaelPDA | December 30, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse


Well I am Democrat (a progressive one) and I presume we probably share some similar concerns - Iraq/Iran War, a women's right to chose, the war on terrorism, access to health care, living wage at home and abroad, safe products on our consumer shelves, the health of our planet, the reversal of Brown vs. Board of ED, .... shall I go on ... ?

I sort of like John Edwards and his life path. However, a vote for him is a vote for Hillary. What I mean by this is that the political reality is that he doesn't have the money or the organization to make a go of it on Super Tuesday. Folks, its a two person race .... So,

Now do you really think Republicans are going to lie down and let Hillary as President achieve any measurable level of success in any of these areas (mentioned above)? Not when she is the very lightning rod that can mobilize their base against any proposal made by the Democrats when Hillary Clinton is the Party's leader? (REMEMBER THE REPUBLICANS NEED ONLY 41 VOTES IN THE SENATE TO BLOCK ANY VOTE - FLIBUSTER) (In their minds its a win/win if she is the nominee - 1) lighting rod to win the election for a Republican President, if that fails 2) lighting rod to obstruct the American Peoples agenda.

It's not that I don't like Hillary's policy positions, it is that is clear as the crack on our Liberty Bell that Hillary knows her victory is not a victory for America. She knows her victory is a victory for Hillary. It is so obvious I am furious. And since I live in California, I will not vote for Hillary - hopefully their are not more people out there like me - because I would hate to find out that their were enough people out their like me to change the election. You surely must recognize that a Hillary Clinton Presidency will be a shallow, get little done, blame the other guy administration. I just would like her to grant the greatest present to the American People and withdraw. By the way, she would probably go down in the history books as the greatest statesman that ever walked the planet if she did.

So, I really do want to vote in in November for President, to so however, please vote for Obama.

Posted by: juandgarza | December 30, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Edwards is a great candidate and has been consistent with his stands on vital issues."

are you KIDDING me???

i don't know what kind of kool-aid those "angry iowans" are drinking out there, but what edwards is doing will only divide the country even more. there is ENOUGH FIGHTING in washington.

plus, edwards has apologized for nearly every single major policy vote he has cast in his time in the senate and now ppl are being baited into thinking that he can lead our country??

choose someone who has the vision to UNITE the country. choose someone who has the judgment to get it right the FIRST TIME!

iowa, please, pay more attention to the records of the candidates, not what they are feeding you.

OBAMA 08!

Posted by: lee.justin.t | December 30, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Hear, hear, morningglory51. I too am sick of hearing about Iowa. It is a small, unrepresentative state, with a truly weird caucus system in which only 6% of Iowans bothered to vote the last time around. The idiots in the media have decided that Iowa is important, so we hear about little else, but WHO CARES?? When the larger and more representative states, like Florida, California, New York, and Michigan begin voting, then someone please wake me up.

Posted by: lydgate | December 30, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Lets look at the top three Dems and what is about to happen in Iowa. This IMHO, Edwards must win to remain viable.--Obama must come in at least a strong second to remain viable.--Hillary could finish third and still win the nomination in early February. There is just to much power in the way these caucus's are set up so that a relatively small number of strong supporters or opponents could sway these meetings however they choose.

Posted by: lylepink | December 30, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

GOOOOO EDWARDS!!
Did you notice how proportionatly little air time Edwards gets compared to Hillary and Obama? Those who grant air time are large corporations.
I'd vote for Edwards in a heartbeat.
As a matter of face, perhaps he should run as an independent if he is squeezed out.
This guy is a REAL American, for real Americans!
GO EDWARDS!!!

Posted by: zcatcreative | December 30, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I heard a pollster interviewed on WTOP radio recently who said (somewhat facetiously) that John Edwards was everybody's second choice. I totally understand what he was saying, because if I weren't supporting Obama I'd be supporting Edwards. Considering the momentum Edwards is getting as he heads into Iowa, it wouldn't be surprising to see him win (or at the very least come in second).

Posted by: dciandy | December 30, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I was a defendants' civil trial lawyer for 25 years and always admired a good plaintiffs' trial lawyer. Nothing is handed to them. They must convince a jury that someone did something wrong in order to justify compensation to their clients. A good trial lawyer is smart, hard working, tenacious and fearless. If John Edwards was able to successfully take on the special interests in North Carolina, he is well suited to take on the special interests in America. He gets my vote.

Posted by: jaj | December 30, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is a great candidate and has been consistent with his stands on vital issues.
He does not have any baggage and was the victim of J. Kerry's inept style and the smear campaign of the neocons four years ago.

Edwards with either Obama or Richardson can bring America back to where we should be. He has my vote!

Posted by: azarm04 | December 30, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Theres a sucker born every minute and you HAVE to be one to buy John Edwards. Its embarassing.

Posted by: Malia2 | December 30, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

As an Edwards supporter from the begining it is good to see the person I consider the best candidate finally being acknowledged. Many scoff at the idea of the rich wanting a "slave labor" working class. For those who scoff at the idea read USAToday's 12/28/07 article on the living conditions of Naples Fla. Pensions that many workers spent their lives contributing to are swept away and not honored by companies who then reward their inept corperate execs with padded golden parachute packages for driving the company to bankrupcy. Yes Edwards is a trial lawyer who has made his OWN fortune as well as getting just compensation for his clients, something no one can or has criticized. At least Edwards has some education in the law and understands it, something this administration and congress seem to have lost. I would rather see the class divide resolved in the legislative branch of government, rather then in the streets something many scholars see for our future with the current trend.

Posted by: richpedrn | December 30, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse


Frishoo, YOU are the scumbag. It is going to be great to know you are wincing as Edwards surges into the Oval Office - VERY SATISFYING INDEED to imagine you eating your liver over your insipid judgement. Very much looking forward to reshaping this nation with President Edwards into one that punishes scumbags like YOU.

-s

Posted by: teamsrini | December 30, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

So maybe Edwards is what we need for a couple of terms - someone who WANTS to kick the establishment in the behind.

Both Hillary and Obama want to work within the system. That's not what's needed right now.

Posted by: lahhtims | December 30, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Hiring a successful lawyer in a product liability case is what most injured people seek to do, his earned wealth from such cases is not a handicap. Its proof he's good in the battle against greedy corporate board room bad boys. They lost. Edwards won and will again for those who have been injured by policies paid for by corporate profits.

Posted by: siren1 | December 30, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I am delighted to finally see Edwards taking the offensive. I have supported him in this campaign but was unhappy with his coverage. Now he is in the forefront and stating my position unequivocally. I wish I were there to work for him but will certainly be knocking on doors when the NJ primaries come along.

Posted by: bobbie929 | December 30, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

ANYONE BUT EDWARDS!

This scumbag made his fortune by suing doctors, nurses and hospitals.

Posted by: Frishoo | December 30, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Go get 'em, Breck Boy!

Posted by: filoporquequilo | December 30, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I believe with all my heart and soul, that John Edwards is the zeitgeist for our time. He's the right man in the right place at the right time. He's the man who's stepped up to answer the call...and the cries of all the down-trodden, passed over, fallen-through-the-cracks, almost-given-up-hope individuals in this country. He's the one who will save the middle class, because he will shore up the underclass as well.

Even a novice builder knows that if you don't have a solid foundation, if you're top-heavy, you're an "accident" waiting to happen. Our country is so top-heavy with our present oligarchy running things that it is headed toward complete disaster. The rich would love to have a legalized, sanctioned "slave labor society", in which, just as the plantation owners of long ago, they rely on virtual "slaves", i.e., those who work for next to nothing, to do their work in order to maximize their profit. Why do you think the Republicans and the corporatist Democrats have made it so easy for businesses to relocate down south and across the ocean, as well as allow so many illegal immigrants into this country? It is the only way they can take advantage of legitimized slave labor! And we Americans have allowed them to get away with it!

Not John Edwards. I predict we'll see higher, more equitable wages, and jobs coming back to this country, so we can once again buy products that say "Made in America". I predict that the underclass will once again see a glimmer of hope and light at the end of the tunnel. Studies show that when people get their needs met and are able to save a little for the future, when they have some guarantee of a stable job and a secure future, that crime decreases. So I predict, literally, a safer, happier, and more productive America under John Edwards' watch.

FINALLY, a man with something to say!

Vote Edwards '08!

Posted by: kentuckywoman | December 30, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of fighting.

Non-binding resolutions, fillibustering, vetoes and frozen government are the result of fighting.

It's all good to "fight" for a good cause, but in Washington the fighting has gotten out of control.

I support Obama because he has a record of working bipartisanly, and getting tough laws passed.

The president can't shove laws down the throats of congress. He has to be able to work with everyone.

Edwards won't work with anyone, and republicans won't work with Hillary. It's time for everyone to act like grownups and get something of substance DONE in Washington.

Obama is the only candidate who can bring everyone together and get things done.

Posted by: julieds | December 30, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse


John Edwards would be my favourite pick for a candidate, but as a non citizen, they'll not ask me. If the outside perspective of European media counts for anything then John Edwards has a hard fight ahead.

You can find a round-up of the primary coverage of European newspapers here:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/good-morning-from-europe-3-days-left-till-the-iowa-caucus-that-is/

Posted by: old_europe | December 30, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Edwards wants to be the Chavez and Moralez of North America but Americans are not ready for him and they will never be. The reason is most Americans are trapped in the twin embraces of religious fundamentalism and materialism. Edwards' message is too secular in its meaning and content and requires sacrifices in Americans' consumption patterns of wants instead of needs.

At their core, American culture and economic system are capitalist. For Americans to accept Edwards' message is to admit that its capitalist value and institutions have failed miserably. Attacking corporate greed and its hold on political power, for a man who has become rich exploiting its legal system, shows that Edwards is either naive or cynical.

Posted by: victorhugo97 | December 30, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

morningglory51, the sad truth of the state of the nomination process is exactly that - Iowa and NH, and, depending on how that goes, the states on super tuesday are the ones that decide. if you don't live in one of those states, you do not get to decide who our nominee is.

Posted by: marinebio72 | December 30, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Much of what Edwards says is true. The rich have gotten richer the last 6 years for sure.

I am as upset as anyone about the "sub-prime" mess and the fact that those at the top of the food chain that created it have not only not been put in jail but have gotten ten's of millions of dollars or hundreds as they walked out the door. The trillion dollar debt Bush has racked up a war we did not need...all of it.

The reality is that most stockholders are as fed up with this crap as the people at the bottom of the food chain are. Just read a few of the stock blogs on Yahoo and you will see that this is true. These are not people who are in the underclass these are the small shareholders.

On the other hand...I am not sure that a populist class war is really what the country needs at the moment. It might feel good at first but not sure where it would lead.

Having grown up on the south side of Chicago I understand what fighting is about..having been a trail lawyer I understand what Edwards is about and what he has done.

But, I find Obama's message to be more in tune with what I think we all need right now. Hopeful...but also one where we stake out where we are and if those who we would talk to are not willing to change then...well its time for a fight.

Posted by: terryscannell | December 30, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I hope John Edwards becomes the Democratic nominee. He will defeat the Republican nominee and win the presidency. His message resonates with the American people because he understands and gives voice to their plight -- the disappearing middle class.

When Edwards wins, I hope he remains true to his message.

Posted by: mhonlim | December 30, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

It looks like Edwards will win Iowa.

He is also surging in New Hampshire, up to 21%! and withing 6 points of Obama in the latest poll.

It looks like he could be the next president. That would be GREAT!

Posted by: river845 | December 30, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

With all the media hype, you would think that Iowa is deciding the Presidential race for the entire nation. I am so sick of hearing about Iowa I could puke. Iowans don't vote for me or the rest of the country.

Posted by: morningglory51 | December 30, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards has as much chance of winning the demo primary as Hillary has sexually exciting Bill.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | December 30, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for giving Edwards some much deserved attention before Thursday's caucuses. Clearly, Iowans are responding to Edwards and his vision for change. He is our best hope for a better future for all Americans.

Posted by: fdouglasb | December 30, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Edwards will be a GREAT president. He will restore our standing in the world, he will work for the lot of the middle class without threatening corporate America, he will bring justice to minorities and fight bigotry.

His honesty and integrity are admirable and the courage of his family remarkable.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | December 30, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards is right. The evidence is everywhere. The war on Iraq was conducted under false pretenses with plans concocted by a combination of oil interests and neocons. Americans were hoping for a Marshall Plan for Iraq; the Bush Administration incompetents delivered another "Chile under Pinochet," as well as a civil war. Energy companies wrote the 2005 energy bill which provided them with huge credits at a time of record energy profits; energy interests in 2007 managed to kill the renewable electricity standard. Drug companies wrote the Senior Prescription Drug Plan. Veterans of Iraq and refugees from New Orleans are treated so poorly. Mine safety standards are plunging. There are unreported scandals surrounding the firm which had exclusive contracts to supply body armor. There are huge numbers of unregulated and unaccountable private security forces in Iraq. The list goes on and on and on. "It's worse than you can possibly imagine even after taking into account its worse than you can possibly imagine."

Posted by: CyberCitizen | December 30, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company