Ezra Klein: He's Good

« "Seriousness" on Health Care | Main | The "All Or Nothing" Myth »

January 15, 2007

He's Good

Apologies in advance for blockquoting myself -- but here's what I wrote 14 months ago when John Edwards declared that his Iraq War vote was a big mistake:

There's going to be plenty of parades for Edwards to march in front of over the next couple months, and I really hope he takes the opportunity. The antiwar movement is bottom-heavy, and lots of people are just looking for some Democrat to stand behind. The sooner Edwards becomes that Democrat, or at least one of those Democrats, the better positioned he'll be for 2008.

Today he did that, and I'm one happy werewolf. Speaking at the same church where Martin Luther King called for an end to the Vietnam War 40 years ago, Edwards called for Americans to speak out against Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq. (Again, he called it the McCain Doctrine.) You can see excerpts of the speech, and a video of Edwards asking you to call your representatives and tell them to stop the escalation here.

Last week, it was the Michelman endorsement. This week, it's the big antiwar speech. And these are for a guy whose big claim to fame is his economic leftism. Edwards is making himself known as the progressive candidate in the 2008 Democratic field.

January 15, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

John Edwards is like the Catholic Church: he'll shoot you, apologize, and then shoot again.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Jan 15, 2007 4:16:40 AM

LOOK OUT HERE COMES TOMORROW

Contrary to what George W. Bush, claims, our' Congress' can take the war in Iraq, and any further warfare away from him, and it is in fact our' responsibilty, as Americans, to do so. As, George W. Bush' and company, are presently the persons, really running a war by committee, as just because, you call it, a cabinet, instead of a committee, does not mean it is not still, as it is yet: a group called a committee, of which, attempts to run a war, on information, not gathered, by themselves, on a battlefield.

From, now on we need to let our' Congresss' give any warfare needs directly to our' military to handle, as they see fit, directly, at the source: the battlefield.

Also, we need to do this, giving the military, the warfare issue in Iraq, as we need to end this left-right, up-down, in-out, black-white, wrong-right and liberal-conservative divide, in our' Congress'. As, there are a million things needing handling, here at home, going unattended, whilst' those in our' Congress' argue politics, instead of governing their territories, and metting the needs of thier contituency. Trying to straddle this divide and cover only extreme left-right positions, leaves all middle ground open, as if it does not exist. By, keeping political debate focused only on these extreme left-right positions, in debate, these pseudo-Christian, lame-duck, right wing conspiracy, Bush' league people keep any needs, and wants, of all people from being met. Remove, the illusionist's veil from your' eyes, and take notice, we are a country, of a lot of people, and there is a lot going on, we need to deal with as a whole, you, me and they, and our' entire government and Congress, need to take back the land, so we Americans, can once again live off of our' own land.

We' need to make sure, as many American's, as possible, no longer face a tomorrow, as they do today, as, involuntary crime victims, not just as involuntary terror victims. It is, successfully, argueable, all crime is a terror attack, no matter how much more fun being Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, seems, compared, to fighting on foreign soil, as like, was done is, Iwo Jima. I no longer watch movies that glorify and romanticize crime, as having done the crime, and done the time, I tell those still thinking Butch is a fun guy, "You are wrong! I met him, in jail, and trust me Butch, is not a fun guy, and neither is commiting crime and doing time."

please my blogs:

http://lokieponaphoenix.blogspot.com/
http://wellnessempowered.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mark Robert Gates | Jan 15, 2007 8:16:34 AM

Yup, and as Atrios is noting, Obama's Iraq plan appears to be to wait a Friedman Unit or so, and then begin withdrawing.

Edwards is still not getting that much notice in the media. I recognize that it's still so early that really his audience are activists, volunteers, major endorsement possibilities, and we shouldn't be worrying much about whether he's on CNN.

I don't really have a lot of analysis on this. Edwards seems to me to be running a pretty brilliant campaign, but I'm wondering what metrics we should be watching to judge its effectiveness over the next several months.

Posted by: DivGuy | Jan 15, 2007 9:59:42 AM

Edwards is scooping up the activists, Obama the media insiders.

Posted by: Matt Stoller | Jan 15, 2007 10:15:35 AM

"Edwards is scooping up the activists"

According to my calculations, this is the first time in the history of the open primary system where the candidate of the activists is also the strongest general election candidate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we're through the looking glass here, people. We can takeover the WH in the name of the left if we all make this happen.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 15, 2007 10:34:31 AM

When you hear these progressive things coming out in this thick southern drawl, it's very "only Nixon can go to China."

He's definitely progressive, but he's very good at wrapping it in a very bipartisan message AND not subjecting himself to "lefty" caricature. He talks about the need for individuals to take "personal responsibility" and speak out against escalating the war in Iraq.

And one other thing Edwards can do is get money. It's not clear to me that Obama can do that. You can't win a campaign with just the media.

Also, he's the only Dem who knows how to stick a shiv into his opponents. This is a VERY big deal, because it seems in politics only Republicans can throw a punch.

He was the first to go after McCain by calling this escalation the "McCain Doctrine," forcing the media to push McCain on it. This'll accomplish 2 things--help end the media love-in of McCain, and set the stage to lay the surge's failure at McCain's feet instead of Bush's. He also went after Gephardt with both barrels in the primary debates, destroying him while looking good with an incredulous "you understand?" And he got away with bringing up Cheney's lesbian daughter, which Kerry did not.

Posted by: anonymous | Jan 15, 2007 10:44:33 AM

"And one other thing Edwards can do is get money. It's not clear to me that Obama can do that."

FWIW, the conventional wisdom has it the other way 'round, that Obama will have no problem raising money while Edwards faces a challenge in that arena.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 15, 2007 11:38:59 AM

Eh. I don't think what Edwards said was especially brave, or especially challenging - not that I like the knock (and not that I think we owe anyone anything), but saying "I'm a Democrat and I'm opposed to the troop surge" seems rather reflexive, at this point. Exhorting Congress to deny funds? A painless bromide for Edwards, who never showed that much willingness to buck the system when a vote like that ("so you DON'T support the troops") would have been his to explain. Does he have an alternative proposal...? I don't think so (again, not that he owes us one), so it's just "I don't like what the President's doing" - yes, there's a brave, counter the popular sentiment of the time... oh wait...

Saying Edwards has the progressive vote or the "activist" vote sewn up - especially this early - seems fallacious and more than a little unfair to people I consider some of my best thinking brethren (and sisteren, if that's the word... :)); I give more credit to activist progressives than leaping onto the first goodlooking talker who says what you want to hear. But then, I'm counterintuitive like that. ;)

Posted by: weboy | Jan 15, 2007 4:12:38 PM

I guess weboy must be supporting Gore; I can tell by his concern, his anxious tone as he watches Edwards establish himself as a strong progressive while Gore stays on the sidelines.

Weboy claims that Edwards never "showed that much willingness to buck the system when a vote like that ("so you DON'T support the troops") would have been his to explain. In fact, Edwards voted against the infamous 87 billions dollars in 03.

"Does he have an alternative proposal...?" Weboy wants to know. Why, yes, yes he does. It's called withdrawal, and he's been advocating it for a good 7 months.

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 15, 2007 4:22:15 PM

I'm thrilled that Johnny has found his voice on the war (truth be told, he's been strong on this topic since the spring, only now is the press starting to notice.)

The next thing I'd like to see him take up in a big way is the issue of torture in general, and the horrid MCA in particular. Making torture an issue would be both good politics--in the Primary-- and good policy. Speaking of which, I found this telling exchange from 2001 (On Counterpunch) in which Edwards grills Ashcroft about military commissions. Point is, the guy's got good civil libertarian instincts; I hope he makes the choice to let them influence his campaign.

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 15, 2007 4:28:22 PM

Whoops. Here's the link...

http://www.counterpunch.org/edwards1.html

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 15, 2007 4:30:38 PM

Whoops. Here's the link...

http://www.counterpunch.org/edwards1.html

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 15, 2007 4:30:50 PM

Whoops. Here's the link...

http://www.counterpunch.org/edwards1.html

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 15, 2007 4:31:18 PM

I gotta say I disagree. I think torture is only a hot-button issue for a small percentage of the democratic base, and it's not the section that Edwards has been focusing on. Opposition to the war, support for unions, proposals to fight poverty and provide universal health care, are all issues that play directly into the concerns of working-class Americans. I don't see torture as fitting into that paradigm quite so well - it's more about ideals than everyday life. It's more about a quasi-libertarian vision of freedom than about everyone pulling together for change.

I have no doubt that an Edwards presidency would end the abomination that is "legalized" torture, and I could not be more strongly opposed to the monarchic aspects of Bush's presidency. But I think that, as a political matter, the issues around torture, surveillance, and the expansion of presidential authority do not fit so easily into the progressive narrative that Edwards is telling.

Posted by: DivGuy | Jan 15, 2007 4:51:24 PM

You could be right, Divguy; perhaps I'm thinking with my heart. But my sense is that this issue has a larger appeal that you seem to believe--especially among Democratic Primary voters. Gitmo, wiretapping, torture: Feingold rode these issues to widespread popularity among the base and would've been a factor in the race had he chosen to run. What's more, the complexity of these issues is precisely why they're good ones for Edwards, who's failed, according to some detractors, of failing to take risks. Nothing separates a true progressive from a pretender like a civil liberties issue. There are still many Deanics and Gore-lovers up for grabs, and a strong stand on torture might nudge them toward Edwards.

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 15, 2007 5:46:49 PM

So, david, was this the link? That is, the one where Edwards was asking the questions we would want a Senator to be asking and Ashcroft was engaged in a combination of buck passing and lying?

Posted by: BruceMcF | Jan 15, 2007 9:38:54 PM

Thanks, Bruce. I gotta get better at this Internet thing; I heard it's gonna be big.

Posted by: david mizner | Jan 15, 2007 11:06:44 PM

Talking up the torture issue in an online chat or something might be a good way to pick up some activist supporters for the campaign. All the Democratic candidates are likely to agree on this point, of course. (Aren't they?)

Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 15, 2007 11:53:25 PM

david mizner - eh. I'm no fan of Al Gore; I wasn't in 2000, and I've been a pretty loud naysayer on future Gors candidacies. I think he'd be horrendous as the Democratic nominee, but luckily I don't think it's likely to ever come to that.

My larger point is that I think progressives - especially, as noted by Ezra today (Wednesday the 17th), the "professional proletariat" types - are having an Edwards romance that's free from larger questions of whether Edwards can really succeed. I've heard nothing, really nothing so far, that puts Edwards out as some one a) likely to beat Hillary in key things like money and organizing strength early on or b) the brave soul who's positons will be so uniquely differentiating that he'll unite the left and seal off anyone else - especially Hillary from swiping enopugh to prevail.

As I said, I don't think it's especially brave or challenging to be a lefty who doesn't like the surge, wants withdrawal and would defund the troops to prove it, when he has no skin in any game to make those demands a reality. Lovely that he voted against the famed "87 billion" that derailed John Kerry, but that seems like it was asked and answered at the time. Because I think the challenge for a next President - and especially for the Democrat running for the role - will be to cast an alternative plan that doesn't have Iraq sinking into a Civil War of such violence and depravity that our exit looks as disastrous as complete (over some phased period) withdrawal does. I haven't heard one that makes my hair stand up yet. If Edwards can deliver it, swell, but what I've seen so far does not seem promising

Posted by: weboy | Jan 16, 2007 4:23:11 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘