Why don't you like Edwards? (No Flames please)

[Armstead]

This is an honest question. I'm an Edwards supporter. Frankly, he was my half-hearted choice initially, because I had some concerns about his sincerity, and whether there was any meat on the bones of his populist-progressive message.

However the more I saw and heard him (especially in interviews where he was allowed to go beyond soundbytes and his stump speech) the more enthusiastic I became, both about his personal leadership qualities and intelligence and about the realistic tough-minded optimism of his message.

He's not my perfect candidate. I'd prefer that he go for single-payer universal health care, be a bit stronger on "trust-busting" reversing the monopolistic dirction the economy has taken, etc.

But of all of the contenders who have had a chance at the nomination, he's the one who IMO best embodies the liberal/progressive traditions that the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for. He's also the most free of the corporate-insider ties that have been surpressing those ideals for too long.

And as a candidate he is straightforward and appealing. Plus he has a great family.

So I am truly baffled why he hasn't been doing better.

I am curious as to why more people aren't supporting him.

Let me save you some time.

1)Yes he gets $400 haircuts, and he is probably vain about his appearance. He also lives in a McMansion. But neither of this type of "flaw" is exclusive to him. Most people at that level spend big.

2)Yes he briefly worked for a hedge fund that did some disreputable things. But is that any different than the path most people in national politics go after serving? And he got out of it fairly quickly, instead of remaining in that world and simply cashing in for the rest of his life.

3)His supposed inconsistencies. They bothered me too. And he really ticked me off during the Iraq War debates and the 04 campaign because of that. However, a close look at his record on otehr issues indicates that his positions now are not as different as it has been charactized as. he has been an advocate for corporate accountability and responsibility, and a basic populist from the start. And, in those instances that were inconsistent, such as MFN for China, he was largely going along with the rest of the Democratic Beltway crowd.

Perhaps one or all of these are the deal-breakers for you. If so, why don't they bother you about other candidates?

I'm honestly interested (and will not flame) sincere responses as to why more people don't want to go with a candidate who would seem to embody what the Democratic Party is alleged to stand for, and who is relatively free of actual negatives.

[Politicub]

1. Edwards is great. I have no beef with him

I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but I just happen to like Hillary more for the primaries.

[trueblue2007]

33. I back Edwards 100%

I love Edwards. I especially like his ANGER!!

I'm one of those "MAD AS HELL" people. I'd take to the streets if the apathetic Americans would march against the WAR.....for JOBS or other worthwhile cause.

I miss the 70's.

[LiberteToujours]

2. He doesn't appeal to me on a personal level

I think I am still stuck at where your initials concerns for him laid ... doubts about his sincerity. He strikes me as a slick salesman. I'm not saying it's not possible that I'm mistaken, and I don't doubt your conviction of his sincerity, but that is my honest answer. :)

[Armstead]

5. Hearing him on Charlie Rose dispelled a lot of that for me

He was very honest and three-dimensional on that, and made sure that no one thought he was peddling instant solutions.

I wish he had more exposure in that kind of venue.

[LiberteToujours]

12. I can appreciate that

It's unfortunate when a good person with a good message just doesn't have the stage personality necessary for mass appeal. It's really too bad because I believe we overlook a lot of potentially great politicians due to our turning them into overproduced characters in the mass media. I'll see if I can find some talks by Edwards in a more intimate setting.

[Armstead]

37. Here's a video of the Charlie Rose interview....

http://www.charlierose.com/guests/john-edwards

[Missy M]

3. I initially disliked Edwards......

but I no longer dislike him. I did not think he was sincere but I changed my mind and think he is. I am still a Hillary supporter first but Edwards comes in a close second.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Sincerity was an issue for me

That concern has been fading but I still am troubled at times by how he could have said and done some things before that undercut his current positions with the degree of conviction that he seemingly had then. When my concern for his sincerity fades that is partially offset by a concern regarding judgement and/or having the experience needed to make the right judgement the first time when new issues that none of us may be talking about now emerge in the future.

To be honest I am answering the OP question reluctantly and only because it was directly and sincerely asked. I have no desire to talk down John Edwards. I think he is a good man, and a good Democrat, and I greatly appreciate the causes he is choosing to fight for.

Mostly I worried that Republicans would have too easy a job painting John Edwards as insincere rather than worrying about his sincerity myself. If sonehow John Edwards becomes our nominee, I will do everything I can to help him get elected while looking forward to a better future for America with him as our President.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. I started out liking Edwards. I Love Elizabeth and I think Edwards was top notch

And then he started attacking Clinton. I thought it was over the top and ugly. And I stopped supporting him (he was my second).

I have always had problems with his sudden turnaround, and actions do speak louder than words. But, with his populist message, I thought it was worth giving him a chance.

He then got the message after the Philly debate when Dodd and others told him he looked rabid. And he stopped attacking Clinton. And I started warming up to him again.

But, then he started again. And the attacks were vicious--"she has not conscience" and very personal (and not true). I decided I would never support him.

[Hieronymus]

48. How do you feel about Hillary's attack dog, Bill?

[maxsolomon]

6. damaged goods

that's not my opinion (if i can't have dennis, he's my choice out of the 3 still standing), that's just my guess at the first impression he leaves on a lot of, let's say, less investigatory democratic voters.

2004, and the anemic campaign he was part of, hurt a lot of feelings.

[Warpy]

7. Some of us know his history

He campaigned for his Senate seat in NC sounding much the way he does now, like an economic populist. Alas, his voting record didn't reflect it. The best thing he did was author the sunset clause in the Patriot{sic} Act before signing on as a sponsor. A lot of folks out there just plain don't trust him and look to his history as a reason why.

Personally, I'll probably vote for him in the primary because he's the only viable candidate who is talking about the other 80% of us in this country. It's the only way to send the party movers and shakers a message that the rest of us are still here and we've been having a rotten time with the business as usual promoted by the other two front runners.

He's also been out of the system for four years. There is a chance that he's gotten the same reality check that Richardson did and that it won't bounce this time.

The truth is that I don't trust any politician farther than I can throw him and I have spinal arthritis so that's not far. I'll be voting for Edwards to send the party power brokers a message. If enough of us do that, it will tend to affect the message of whomever the candidate is.

[davidwparker]

16. Are you from NC? I'm voting for Edwards in the primary because 1) he

seems to be a populist, but I'm listening to what you say. 2) I want a brokered convention.

This is my LAST year supporting someone who isn't Kucinich, or Boxer, or Feingold. That is, someone who does have a populist record.

[Warpy]

18. I have a lot of online friends in NC

and I spent part of my kidhood there, so I know the state very well.

It's rather a dream, having a populist candidate who actually has a snowball's chance in hell. It will be quite a treat to vote FOR someone in a primary.

[OzarkDem]

25. I know Obama & Clinton's history, I see it every day

and its nothing but obfuscation and excuses for doing nothing with a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Every day they show up for work and don't try to accomplish anything they're show how they will be in the WH. No thanks.

[Radical Activist]

8. I like his message.

But I have a problem with his dramatic shift since his Senate career. Its not just the war. He has low career ratings with the League of Conservation voters and the ACLU as well. I don't want someone who changes their views so quickly when its politically expedient. That's what I don't like about Hillary too.

Either he was pretending to be more conservative as a Senator, or he's pretending to be more liberal now, or he doesn't have solidly grounded principles. I think its the first option, but none of them are very appealing.

I also appreciate that Obama could be the first Democratic Party nominee with a history of working in left wing activist movements.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Note that he started being ignored by the mass media

as soon as he raised substantive issues. Although Kucinich is my first choice, Edwards is my second choice, and it was astonishing and infuriating to listen to the NPR coverage of the New Hampshire results and hear the commentators give the standings of all the Republican candidates but on the Democratic side, act as if Hillary and Obama were the only candidates that mattered.

I listened for 20 minutes as I was driving home from a meeting, and the relative standings of the five Republican candidates were mentioned twice, while Edwards was not mentioned once. That's pretty blatant bias, if you ask me.

Welcome to the world that Kucinich supporters have known since 2004. We don't assassinate outspoken leaders anymore. That's so 1960s. We just impose a media blackout on them and make sure that the only mentions of them are disparaging ones.

[Armstead]

53. I don't like the blackout of Kucinich either

The media dismissed him from day one. That totally sucks, because Kucinich is so right on many issues, and presented a clear choice -- or at least the opportunity to hear and consider otehr views from the mold.

I ultimately went for Edwards because, tho not quite so consistent with my views as Kucinich, I think Edwards has the potential to bring progressive ideas into the top tier.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. I'll be honest

I find his speaking style condescending. I think he speaks down to his audience. I think he simplifies things too much. I think his speaking style itself is droll. He uses the same speech patterns all the way through his speeches, which makes him hard to listen to for a long period of time.

He's much better when he's talking conversationally, rather than on a stump. I think he becomes wooden and relies on his standard campaign speech like a crutch.

I think his candidacy was pretty one-note - that corporations were bad and if you fight them, you'll be able to get anything you want. I think that's a way oversimplification of the problems we face in this country.

I don't find him credible on national security. He voted like a hawk when he thought that's what he needed to be to get the nomination in 2004. Now he's talking like a dove when he thinks that's what he needs to be to get it in 2008.

I think his whole message is way too simple and pretty ignorant of the way Washington works. One man cannot come into Washington and fight every lobbyist and every Republican and every swing-state Democrat and not be ground to a pulp by the end of his first term. Maybe you can get away with that if you have some sort of clout within the party, or a force of personality that makes people either afraid or respectful of you - both I don't think Edwards has either.

I think he's managed his campaign poorly from the start. I think he's reached out to the Internet at the expense of the traditional media, and that's cost him now in terms of visibility on television. It was a strategic move, but the Internet still isn't powerful enough to reach and influence the voters the way tv can.

And lastly, I just like Obama a whole lot more than him. He inspires me in ways that Edwards doesn't. He speaks better than him. and he's more of an overall agent of change than Edwards.

I hope he runs for Senate again, or governor. I think he'd be more useful there. But I don't know if he could even win again in his own state. I think if he thought he could, he would have kept his name on the ballot in 2004.

[Apollo11]

42. Good post. I kind of agree with Magic Rat.

I am kind of amazed that DU seems to be full of folks who have total faith in John Edwards' sincerity and his ability to deliver change, but then they dismiss Barack Obama as a corporate puppet. If you look at John Edwards voting record when he was in the Senate, he was not the most liberal Senator. In fact he voted for a lot of things that most of us here on DU don't like.

[Armstead]

54. On balance his voting record was consistent with his current message

He screwed the pooch a few times, but he was more often on the progressive side of votes. And reading some of his speeches from back then, he had the same populist message as today -- just not quite as strident.

The times he did screw the pooch, he was usually in line with the majority of Democrats (such as MFN for China)

[okasha]

13. I do like Edwards.

He's my second choice by a hair.

[russian33]

14. he's my second choice, after Hillary

and ideally, a VP (i know, again) if he withdraws from the race
and if not a VP, then some cabinet level position...i think he's a great man

[rox63]

15. I like his policy proposals

But I don't trust that he'll be able to deliver on them. He seems to promise too much, and most of it would probably be squashed in Congress. In addition to that, there's just something about him that strikes me as phony.

Edit to add: I would vote for him if he were the nominee. But right now, he's my 2nd choice, after Obama.

[OzarkDem]

22. I have more faith in Edwards getting his agenda through Congress

than I do Obama or Clinton.

Both have taken so much money from lobbyists their first action will be to back track and water down their promises.

These two can't even get the simplest, most non-controversial legislation through the Senate. They are incapable and uninterested in doing any "heavy lifting" to move bills. They demonstrate it every day they show up for work.

OTOH, Edwards is beholden to no lobbyists or corporate interests. As is evidenced by his campaign, he has plenty of backbone and knows how to get what he wants in Congress.

Which do you want? The agenda that was promised to voters delivered? Or a watered down version rewritten by corporations, with no change?

[HughMoran]

17. I like Edwards

I wish Elizabeth was well enough to run. John's facial ticks are just too distracting for me - I have trouble watching him speak - he makes me nervous, though I like his positions and would vote for him in a heartbeat.

[OneSelf]

19. I support Edwards, but I thought I'd share this...

I was talking to my dad on the phone last night. After a while, we started discussing the candidates and he thinks Hillary has the best shot. When I mentioned Edwards, he said he was happy that Edwards isn't doing well. I asked why that was and he stated that Edwards seems too slick.

Tried digging into why he felt that way, and he mentioned a few of the points from the OP, but the bottom line was that he just doesn't feel he can trust Edwards.

I'm hoping he'll come around, but he's pretty stubborn. Just like his son.

[OzarkDem]

23. Welcome to DU

[OneSelf]

30. Thanks, OzarkDem

:hi:

[surfermaw]

47. Ask your father when he get the slick from,

If he were a crook like the others he could have gotten millions to spend, he spent 3 mill in Iowa and Hillary and Obama spent 9 mil each, then Wolf Blitzeer alone gave them probably 9 more million each and Edwards comes in second, forgot how many millions Oprah spent in Iowa, bringing students back to college to vote for Obama, however Bill Clinton mess the college kid vote up for him in N.H. and the Obama people cry foul, I think Obama is a cry baby on CNN today crying like a baby, wonder how much money was given to him by CNN, just today, his name was mentioned about 3 dozen times this one fifteen minute news show.

[seasat]

20. I'll whole heartily support him if he is our nominee but he's always been low on my list

While I believe Road to Damascus type conversions are possible, I want to see some concrete action to back up their words before I believe their conversion.

Edwards has the lowest ACLU and League of Conservation Voter ratings of all our candidates. He supported a Department of Domestic Intelligence in his 2004 campaign. He stated that we need to put "One nation under God" back in the pledge during his DLC speech. He co-sponsored the IWR and wrote an oped so heavily in support of it that the State Dept put it on their website. He voted against raising CAFE standards for light trucks and SUVs. He voted for mountain top removal coal mining. He voted for the Yucca Mountain repository after much scientific evidence had come out on why it was a dangerous site. He helped usher through the repeal of the Glass-Stegelmann act that allowed banks to form mega-financial corporations like CitiCorp. Those are just several of the many votes and positions he had that are polar opposite to his current positions. If he had stayed in the Senate and voted his current positions, then I might have more faith in him.

He is the least experienced of the candidates in his public service. He only served one term and was absent almost 42% of the time his last two years. His only foreign policy experience is serving on a study group about Russia for the Council on Foreign Relations after he got out of the Senate.

He hasn't run a great campaign. He accepted public financing which will hamper him in the run up to the convention. He campaigned for years in Iowa and lost. He didn't start advertising heavily until late in the campaign. His populist message hasn't resonated with the majority of voters, despite evidence that voters are more open to it this year.

Even liberal party officials like Feingold have rejected endorsing him. That shows me that either they don't trust him or he doesn't work well within the party. I seriously doubt that it's his populist message. I want a candidate that can move our agenda through congress. His lack of experience and party support doesn't bode well for him being able to do that.

While I agree with his policies more than Obama or Clinton, I have trouble believing that he has the ability to follow through with them if elected.

[Apollo11]

44. Another good post

It seems like every time I see Edwards he is admitting that one of his Senate votes was a big mistake. What was the one in last week's MSNBC debate? Yukka Mountain was one. Then there was the bankruptcy bill thing?

[OzarkDem]

21. He's a "free" candidate

not obligated to any special interest except regular voters. He's free to follow his agenda without worry of repercussions because his only allegiance is to the voters who elected him, not to lobbyists, health insurance companies, defense contractors, banks or multinational corporations.


That's very dangerous to the DLC Dem crowd. And very good for the US.

[IsItJustMe]

24. He is the only candidate, either Rep or Dem, that seems to have the balls to talk about

the big pink elephant that is standing in the middle of the room. Corporate greed is destroying this country, and the politicians that pander to that greed. It has destroyed our media and is in the final stages of destroying our environment, our health care, our future, ....

It has created huge divisions in this country between the haves and have nots and is continuing to create huge inequities within our society. If this trend continues unchecked, good luck to us all.

I don't know if Edward's plans can honestly solve these problems. But one thing I can tell you for sure is this, before you can fix a problem, you have to be able to understand it, and Edward's gets it.

[robbedvoter]

26. 1. Being silent all these years about the 2004 theft.2 Sponsoring IWR (still not

acknowledged) 3.Running against his record - big credibility problem.
I only like Gravel. And Kucinich. Don't support any of the 2 - although I might
I also don't like how, to boost his electibility creds, he's propping McCain
http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/20/212114/509
not a good sign for the way he'd fight in a GE
conceivable vote for one of them for one of those reasons :
protest sexism
protest reagan
Mighty Clenis stuff
Conceivably. Not sure yet.

[Sweet Pea]

27. I Hate The SOB

Hate to be so blunt, but with his money and his double-standards and his narcissism and his freewheeling personal spending habits I see absolutely nothing that engenders anything positive in the man. To have a President like that almost gives me heart failure.

Go ahead and make up your excuses - he has a big house (so what - lots of people have a big house) - he gets expensive haircuts (so what - lots of people pay $400 for a haircut - yeah, right! mine cost $15, and thats WITH a tip) - the whole hedge fund deal (so what - lots of people trash the hedge fund business then go to work for one and make tons of money - with an excuse of "Oh...I just wanted to learn how they work")

Make up all the excuses for this charlatan that you like. You'd probably make up excuses for anything, in that case. He's in this race because he is a narcissistic egotist. Populist? Progressive? $1.7 million from Fortress Investment Group? How much of that went to the poverty-stricken folks he said he took that "job" to learn about?

Makes me sick.

But hey! Make up your excuses and keep trudging along like a big ol' draft horse with blinders!

[OzarkDem]

28. Welcome to DU

:eyes:

[Sweet Pea]

36. Been here a while

in case you couldn't tell.

[grantcart]

40. nice reply

[dkf]

29. I like him, but I don't connect with him.

On a purely non emotional level, I could definitely vote for him.

[Dawgs]

31. Two reasons.

1) His record as Senator; specifically his judgement regarding the Iraq war.

2) His performance as a VP candidate in 2004.

[smalll]

32. I also don't trust him.

He hasn't done anything in his life that hasn't been about himself. I think he himself has said that he first went to college to study textile engineering to enable him to get a good-paying, managerial job in the industry. He then went on to law school, clerked for a judge, then took a position at a typical law firm. He fell into plaintiff trials through an assignment at that firm; after a couple of successes at such work, he went out on his own to do the same kind of thing. He had found his route to riches.

Today he is running for President (again) and although he is worth 55 million, there is no evidence that he has kicked any of his own money into the campaign.

Barack Obama spent many years as a community organizer; Hillary Clinton's first job out of law school was to work for the House Judiciary Committee, where she did work that would have paved the way for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Except for her years at the Rose Law Firm, she too has focused on low-paying, public interest work.

Yes, the house, haircut and hedgefund matter.

Edwards' message is so important: America needs a strong dose of economic liberalism now, as does the Democratic Party, to be able to re-connect with the working class and middle class. It's terrible bad luck that the message is being carried only by a phony adventurer (Edwards) and by Dennis Kucinich.

His message is so compelling and necessary, as can be seen by his strong contingent of supporters at DU, and by the fact that these supporters have brainwashed themselves into ignoring the truth about John Edwards, the man.

Finally, if Edwards were our nominee, he would be unelectable: the Republicans can slander Obama and Hillary and hope for the "best" -- but they would be able to eviscerate Edwards with something much more effective than slander -- ridicule.

[trueblue2007]

34. I'm an Edwards supporter

and I stand by my message!

[no name no slogan]

35. I like him, but I like Kucinich better

I just think Kucinich has a better record, and has better positions that Edwards. If Edwards is the nominee, I will certainly vote for him, though.

[MethuenProgressive]

38. He's an obvious fraud. He will apparently say/do *anything* to win a verdict... er... election.

If I slipped on a grape at the Piggly Wiggly, I'd call him. But vote for him? Not in the Primary.

[shireen]

39. the "trust" issue

Altho' I support Edwards, it's tempered by some degree of mistrust. I can't bring myself to plunge into his campaign and actively volunteer like I did for Wes Clark in 2004.

On the other hand, I have equal amounts of mistrust towards Clinton and Obama. The only reason I'm inclined to vote for Edwards is because he speaks for the poor.

I wish Gore or Clark were running ... two very smart people, completely sincere and trustworthy.

[TarHeelMom]

41. Hurricane Isabelle

I could write pages on my excitement in 1998 when he was elected our senator, to the present time when I have total skepticism about the man. Aside from him refusing to meet with his constituents who were protesting the upcoming war, it was his inaction when Hurricane Isabelle hit the eastern part of the state that sealed my negative opinion of him. I would read letters to the editor criticizing him for not showing up at this or that in NC, when one might expect a senator to appear in his state, but I would chalk it up to Republican smear. So when Hurricane Isabelle hit, I specifically watched to see what Edwards would do. While our poor in eastern NC had coffins floating in their yards, our senator flew to California for a fundraiser with Grey Davis. That has shades of Bush and Katrina. So it was really a thorn in our side when he opened his campaign in New Orleans. Can you say photo-op? I guess he didn't have any pictures of himself with a shovel in the aftermath of his own state's hurricane.

[Big Blue Marble]

43. I like Edwards.

He was always my second choice. I like Obama better.

[Apollo11]

46. A very diplomatic answer!

Barack would be so proud of you! ;-)

[Tulkas]

45. I like him

2nd choice for me

But it seems he can't win. He campaigned in Iowa for five years and came in second. It s all downhill from there.

If he had won Iowa, came in second and N.H and a close second in Nevada I would be supporting him.


What I don't like is that he seems to have assumed the "Ralph Nader" role, bleeding off anti-establishment votes from Obama and helping Hillary win.

That and he can't give a speech without yelling. Yelling all the time takes the emphasis off of it.

[LostinVA]

49. No flames from me -- I like Edwards -- I just like HRC more

[nancyharris]

50. You might consider

that it may not be that people don't like Edwards but rather they think someone else would make a better president (or has a better shot at winning the presidential election).

[tokenlib]

51. I like Edwards and Kucinich...

They speak the truth boldly and forcefully. If Edwards hadn't hurt himself with the haircut, we might be having a different conversation. I don't care about the haircut, but some people get turned off by such things--and it hurt him. Elizabeth is a wonderful woman, and I still feel guilt not supporting them.

I was stuck between Edwards and Obama for the longest time. Hillary has made bargains with the corporate devils on Iraq, bankruptcy reform, and other issues--and I cannot trust her to do the right thing. I want Hillary and her DLC corporatism stopped. I support Obama because he is the strongest rival--and I can live with his positions.

I regret things did not go well for Edwards or Kucinich. But the time came when I felt I had to choose--for Hillary or against her.

[goodgd_yall]

52. I used to support Edwards

I have been uncomfortable about his inconsistency, but I decided to give him the benefit of a doubt. He wasn't only wrong on the IWR but on support Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste depository and a bankruptcy bill.

I don't like the way Edwards continued to attack Hillary Clinton. The first time he did that in a debate, it didn't bother me. I thought it was good some one was challenging her, but as it continued, I really became turned off to Edwards.

I also have always had some doubt about his effectiveness as President. He sounds like he thinks he can make changes just because he's president, but it requires the ability to bring together opposing sides and Edwards has not convinced me he has that as a strength.

Also, as I supported Edwards, I could not ignore the fact that this time we had a chance to break with tradition and elect someone other than a white male. I decided, given the closeness in position of Obama, Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, that I would support a non-traditional candidate. I now support Hillary Clinton.