Washblog

congratulations on having the most recommended diary on dKos today (over 700 comments now).
Great work breaking this story.  

I can hardly wait for Harold Ford and the DLC to respond to Edwards' statement.

by Cherisse on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:50:44 PM PST

---

are called OneCorps groups
here's the link to the list
http://blog.johnedwards.com/chapters/state/WA

by Cherisse on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 07:11:55 PM PST

---

Yes.

Right across the political spectrum of people I talk with -- conservative to liberal to completely unengaged...  there is this anger and sense of helplessness at the inordinate power and greed of corporations.  

In the comments section of Ivan's post Angry White Democrat asks,

This will win Edwards a lot of friends in the netroots, but the question, will it have any resonance in the mainstream? I think seeing how well the general public responds to this rhetoric will prove instructive.

Right below that, TexasBlue says:

Edwards has my FULL attention now:

This is your speech John Edwards. It is your moment. These are the words Americans are longing to hear. These are the words that could bring about an upset over Hillary. Only Al Gore could trump them. The wind is to your back with THIS speech.

Right.  Edwards needs to run with this message.  And  then, when he wins -- he needs to act on it.   That will be the making of a true American hero. The obscene power and wealth and unaccountable, murderous "personhood" of corporations that steal what they want, game our laws and system, suck the money and jobs out of our country, trade human life for profit ...   this is at the center of our woes -- climate change, perpetual war... Americans are indeed longing to hear someone speak the truth about this -- and it's not just Democrats.

by noemie maxwell on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:48:03 PM PST

---

  Can't vote because I lost my decoder ring :)

I'm still strong lean to Richardson, with a fading hope for Gore!

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:05:17 PM PST

---

I'm glad to see you coming around to the idea that not all Democrats are created equal.  And I'm really glad to see Edwards tell it like it is.  It's us against the corporations now.  

by Pen on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:07:38 AM PST

---

yet with that many comments...must be the right subject, right moment.

It's not easy to get the respect of Ivan and admission that he's revising his opinion upward.

I recall that about six months ago, Ivan posted a snarky graphic depicting JE as an empty suit, annoying a certain poster who was at that time displaying a heavy crush.

Edwards may have a tough job to overcome mainstream media depictions of him. I've been concerned about this...it's easy for the MSM (I don't mean Fox but others) to caricature a candate they dislike..and that works. REcall Howard Dean...

Here's an example:

I have a woman friend who's a non-activist but fairly well-informed, whom I convinced to support Dean back in 03. She doesn't blog, but she despises Bush and read Molly Ivins intently before Molly's untimely demise.

Recently she was enthusing about Hillary and seemed surprised that I did not support Hillary and that the Dems I know aren't united in supporting her.

"But Obama, he is just not qualified or experienced!" she said.

When I said I was leaning to Edwards, her response was this: "Edwards - why, he's just a pretty boy!"

I was astonished at that remark: "C'mon, you're smarter than to buy into that caricature".

She said, "And his wife...well, she could die! I can't believe he'd continue to campaign knowing that!"
"That's what she wants."
"It doesn't seem right..."

At that point our conversation was interrupted, but when it resumes I might say: "ANYONE could die! What about Bill Clinton - he's had heart surgery, shouldn't he be taking it easy?"

And I'll point out to her one of Molly Ivin's later columns, where she confirms that she will NOT support Hillary and why.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I opened a mainstream magazine in the check-out line to kill time a few weeks ago, I think it was Newsweek. It featured a big story about Edwards which started out describing him as...guess what, a pretty boy.

It said that Edwards, who is 56(?), shows NO TRACE of aging on his handsome features, and not even a FEW gray hairs visible on his "famous haircut". And went on like that for several paragraphs, as I recall.

The subtext was clear. Edwards looks TOO GOOD. He must've had  cosmetic surgery to enhance his appearance, and probably colors his hair, as well as spending ridiculous fees to style it...
He's a girly man!

That's all I had time to read...I must find the article and finish...but it disgusted me.

If my friend's knee-jerk reaction was "pretty boy" she got that from somewhere...and it's an effective dismissal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember an interview with John Kennedy, Jr. in which Barbara Walters (or someone) asked him about the proccupation of the media with his appearance: constantly displaying photos of him at the beach, speculating about his romances, etc. Did it bother him?

He answered, "If the worst they can say about you is that you look good in a bathing suit, you can't complain too much about it."

But he wasn't running for office.

by dinazina on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:02:22 AM PST

---

This is just my impression, since I haven't been paying attention to the pre-race race.

Ray-Gun and Clinton won hearts and minds because they made Americans feel good about themselves.

I'm not getting that vibe from any of the current candidates. Criticizing isn't enough. Everyone already knows things suck. Sure, it's important for candidates to validate voter's experience.

But it's also important to lead. That vision thing. To play up America's need to believe in a bright future.

One small example.

Single payer healthcare insurance is the correct answer. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But it's not on the table. The proposed half-assed, half-hearted, half-measures don't fool anyone and don't motivate.

Okay, another example.

The impressive number of immigrants is caused by our agricultural subsidies (us dumping our commodities drives their farmers off their land). You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But cutting the subsidies is not on the table. Instead, we talk tough about the illegal immigrants. Which only motivates the racsist nativists (e.g. Minute Men).

So kudos to Edwards for speaking a truth. But I also want to know what the fix is. Plausible fixes, that is.

(If Edwards, or anyone else, has been talking about fixes, I'm happy to be so enlightened. I know that Dennis Kucinich is pretty lucid on most issues.)

by zappini on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:51:56 AM PST

---

I understand the populist position Senator Edwards is trying to take by attacking Corporate America. I do agree that some corporations are bad-of course mostly those that are affiliated with right-wing causes or union busters like Wal-Mart. I would argue though that not all corporations are bad and that many have done gret things for progressive causes many of those based in Washington state.

I think we have to be careful as Democrats not to get caught up in the same kind of rhetoric we used against gun owners or church-goers to further alienate voters away from our candidates and give business Democrats, Independents and some fair-minded Republicans another excuse to label us as a whining Party. By no means do I think we shold run away from calling the evil corporations for what they are. We should look for ways government can help put the focus back on the American worker, but I think it is unfair to label all of Corporate America as bad and unconcerned about the well-being of U.S. citizens.

I also think it is a bit hypocritical of John Edwards to be taking such a populist anti-corporate view when he recently has been in bed with large portions of corporate America in helping to run a hedge fund. I have nothing against hedge funds per se and for full-disclosure I am invested in some. I don't however see how you can profit and advise from and for Coporate America and then turn around and campaign against them.

This populist message is a way to attack Senator Clinton. Some hate the fact that she is taking corporate money, but at least she is honest about it. Edwards may not be taking money directly from corporate lobbyists, but look at FEC reports and other stories of where some of his money does come from the employees and managers of some of these lobbying firms.

I personally don't have a problem with corporate donations as they have as much right as an individual to express their opinion especially if it means a Democrat and particullarly Hillary Clinton gets elected. What I do have a problem with is if that money affects votes and creates undo influence. No one can convince me at this time that they hve tranished the stellar record of Senator Clinton and her ability to propose legislation and decide on issues based on the merits and not on the money.

by Greg Rodriguez on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:24:03 PM PST

---

John Edwards said the following, is that what you are saying?:

"'I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate,' said Edwards. 'They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.'"

WTF?

Is this possible?

The actual case made that workers should control the means of production? Is that what I'm reading?

by dlaw on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 03:44:35 PM PST

---