Why Edwards Died

Edwards' Tragic Mistake by Bill Fletcher

I don't agree that it would ever be worth voting for Edwards or Clinton or Obama. They are all clearly horrible candidates. And Kucinich discredits himself by association with the Democratic Party. All that said, Fletcher sketches out why a candidate like Edwards fails so badly. Suspending disbelief for a second that Edwards' similarities and agreements with the other candidates around some crucial issues isn't a problem take a look at what Fletcher unpacks about the core strategy problem of Edwards and other white candidates. He makes sense.

nice title fred. your own wishful thinking, perhaps?

can just play eenie meenie miney moe and pick one at random, and not trouble us further.

In the heat of the fake elections it is so easy to just play the horserace game and sort of leave the real world of issues and solutions behind. The notion of things bubbling up from below as opposed to candidates riding in on 50 million corporate dollars to save the day...is it really this unthinkable? Maybe it isn't me but the inability to be realistic about the prospects for change coming out of these corporate funded candidates that is the actual issue here.

And Kucinich discredits himself by association with the Democratic Party."

Why are you here?

Go back to the shadow.

No thanks, bub. That role is clearly covered here on DU. Serious political organizations first criticize themselves. I'm sure that comes across as a quite radical if not loony notion, huh?

Are you here to help Republicans steal the WH again?

Because the DEM party is the ONLY party that can stop them from continuing to trash this country and loot the Treasury.

So again... why are you here? What are your goals?

Answer the damn question. Your theatrics and melodrama are wasted.

instead of focusing the attention on the poster. The article raises a point that, if dealt with, strengthens the Dem Party. Only in the shadow of your type of reaction does it remain a detriment to the party.

and all our candidates.

You must want a Republican to win in Nov.

I'm done with ya. Good luck on your little mission. :eyes:

It is clearly working. Look at Edwards' campaign.

This article has a valid criticism but almost all responders on this thread ignored it and chose to do other things with their keystrokes. So while there may be serious criticisms elsewhere, they aren't here. Not in this thread and perhaps not on this issue.

What is your goal here, again?

The point of the article is the way in which Dems run their campaigns, the white populist nature of the campaigns. Did you read the article? You seem to be having an unfortunately common reaction amongst whites who think they hear some kind of attack on them. The article discusses a mistake in the Edwards campaign. Please read it. You may understand or even agree with what the author explains.

I guess not... Republicans don't often refer to OUR party in the possessive like we do, you !

It's not unusual for urban folks to identify with other urban folks. Fletcher, by identity, supports Barack not only because of race and gender, but also from an urban view point. Edwards is stronger in the rural areas, and more rural voters will support his candidacy more.

By choosing not to address the charges in the article is that tacit admittance that they are valid? What do you think about the phenomenon that he accuses both Edwards and Kucinich of? He is focusing on Edwards because he is a Obama supporter and because Kucinich is less relevant in the horserace.

But the author does make some very good points about how to deal with these issues in the future.

We've seen these before, but this one isn't coming back with the typical, "I'm just posting this (typically, some fascist information from some fascist source) for the information, why do you want to censor me?"

Oh, I love the "censorship" thing...

Obviously an Obama supporter trying to blame Edwards for ignoring race and gender?

There are many endorsements to the contrary. And Edwards hasn't "died".

reference)

The site linked in the OP pretty much says it, doesn't it?

Anti-white racist garbage.

I think the letter to Edwards from Dr. King's son, has gotten many people, both black and white, to step back and think about what is going on. Just because Obama is black doesn't mean that he will help black people. As a woman, I don't believe Hillary will do more for me because she is a woman. The letter really showed that this election is about justice and injustice. Woman and blacks in America still get shabby treatment from the government and society and I believe Edwards sees this and will work to change it. His friendship with Dr. King's son and his relationships with the women in his life are great examples of the sincerity of his cause. He gets it, and I think voters will get it too, soon.

So, I take it you're not a fan of Democrats?

No, wait, scratch that.

I take it you're not a fan of running for office as a member of the *only* political party on the left half of the political spectrum that could possibly win an election?

What are you afraid of?

thx

Those of us with several thousand posts tend to wonder when assholes with only 49 come here posting unpopular crap, and don't even have the balls to tell us who they are.

the reference that "

"Edwards, much like Kucinich (in both the 2004 and 2008 Kucinich campaigns), fell prey to the historic "white populist error." "
thus undermining entirely the point of the post


The writers prescription is that

"Former Senator John Edwards could and should have constructed a campaign based upon the notion of social/economic justice and inclusion, rather than restricting himself to economic justice and "change."


anybody who believes that this subtle change would have had a significant impact needs to stop medicating

from wikipedia Bill Fletcher is a Republican politician from the U.S. state of North Carolina

And the person who posted this garbage here is apparently intent helping the Republicans.

It is a shame that
1) Many of you presumably are Democrats and have never heard of trade unionist, DSA member and former president of TransAfrica Forum, Bill Fletcher
2) That you would print a lie either purposely or without doing the barest research
3) Distract this thread from a serious discussion based on an article from an internationally credible black activist with literally decades of global union organizing experience and history

Enough is enough. Why is this happening on this site?

Well, I didn't think, but I hoped that it would have received a greater diversity of responses than the predictable racists and diehard Edwards supporters lacking serious self-critical capacity. One may not agree that the Edwards campaign is toast but it must difficult even for the diehards to ignore Fletcher's premise-the Edwards campaign focuses on the challenges facing the working class but ignores race and gender.

I didn't think" part.

perhaps you should return to freeperville?

Is a race/gender neutral campaign the right strategy? Or does it ignore reality? I obviously think it dismisses the reality of millions in an attempt to secure the support of white men with the hope that 'others', meaning working women and people of color, will tag along. Namecalling is easy. What do you think about this?

I'd tell you to pat yourself on the back, but that tripe isn't fooling anyone but you. And I doubt you're fooled, really. I bet you know exactly what you're doing.

He isn't perfect. Who is. But if you are willing to do 45 seconds of research he clearly isn't a Republican and Fletcher's history of working in labor and radically progressive politics is long. Far longer and far more extensive than any of the candidates running for president this year. I'm sorry if you're confused with the trolling dynamic that is probably a popular thing here but this author is authentic. His topic may be unpopular to Edwards supporters but we should be clear about the author's perspective. He is a lefty.

of the article. as it stands, you started out looking for a flame war, and none of us were inclined to oblige.

what do I think of the article? drivel.

You don't like that he's bringing up race? Fine. But have the courage to say that and not precede with a dog-ate-my-homework type approach before getting to your real problem. And wouldn't it be more effective to say what bothers you about the article rather than seeming like someone inherently hostile to black perspectives which you are likely not.

It kinda makes people tune out what you have to say, whether anything following may be valid or not.

Personally, I'm betting Frederick Douglass would have liked Edwards, but that's just a hunch.

I don't believe I am assuming too much. If you can't/won't do those things that is your right. But I'm slow to assume everyone can't do those things. You should maybe take your time in doing so as well. I think it has much more to do with Fletcher's message than with me. It is (as usual) a bitter pill for almost all white message boards to swallow. I've been on the net for a while as have many of you. And if you're honest, you won't pretend that this kind of thing is an isolated incident or something. These kinds of topics not always, but usually get this type of treatment. And, as usual, the treatment is either dismissed as being the fault of the OP or something like that.

I could be more humble and bow down in my presentation of issues or in the asking of questions but why should I have to do that? There are far squirrelier DUers than I (as you must know) and they aren't required to give BJs when presenting controversial topics or asking unpopular questions. Should I have to because I'm black or because my topic has a racial/gender character to it?

Let's just deal with the material and not wander so far off.

That's an intellectually dishonest accusation to make, don't you think?

Unlike you, I didn't make any assumptions about your race based on your post or who you support or don't support. I don't automatically assume only people of color are interested in issues of race and equality.

Despite your post, I did read the article and I thought it had some interesting points though I didn't ultimately agree with it, so stop making baseless assumptions and accusations. I, like most of the people on this thread, am objecting to what you posted (as you must know).

You don't get a pass to post flamebait by complaining that people are expecting you to be "humble" and give "BJs" as if that's what this is really about. You could have posted this article without such comments, but you chose to use an inflammatory title and make blanket, dismissive statements about all Democratic candidates, knowing full well that everyone would take umbrage and give you all this attention and then you could say it's because we're all just a bunch of white racists. Congratulations on your success. You should run for President.

Apparently you have not. That or you're doing the very thing I bring up. Maintaining that I must be extraordinarily humble. This time you're saying it by implying that I am not allowed to respond to those who accuse me of posting an article that might be interesting but I'm 'doing it the wrong way'. Again, I've been here for several years and we all know there are much more rambunctious posters on this website than I so we shouldn't pretend as if something without everyday precedent (literally) has happened here.

Why are people not reading the article and opining that I need to do things differently. What does that mean if not a reference to my style (as opposed to the content). Some respondents have referenced my screen name, Fredrick Douglas, indicating that they assume I'm black (I am; so what?). Whether you agree with the article or not, like the title or not, what does my username have to do with this?

So when I respond to these things even that becomes a problem? I'm baiting by responding? Regardless of your intentions, which are far from clear, I hope you can see how it looks. Everything I've said is verifiable. Just read the comment thread. I'm not the one who brought my personal identity and race into this discussion (clearly a distraction tactic) but only suspect posters will castigate ME (and not the initiators) for reasonably responding to such a lack of etiquette and racial mean-spiritedness.

The intention was not to initiate a personal contest with you or anyone else. I believe the issue presented in the article stands on its own but a thorough reading of the comment thread says far more about the culture of this community than it does about me. But I understand that I'm the easy target here and I've been on the other side of this so, okay. But you really should not expect me to get in line with these seemingly prejudiced requests for more humility from me in my presentation. Take a look at the DU forums at large and you'll see the double standard in 2 minutes.

I think this has been asked and answered.

No one's asking for "humility" and you know it. You've read the thread, I've read the thread. No one said you were baiting by responding. Your OP was flamebait and you don't want to admit it. It's as simple as that.

:wtf:

Where AM I?!!

This means that the first thing we must seriously attend to is self-criticism. I prefer not to play the cheerleader. Albeit, there is quite a bit of that happening on this message board but its not a requirement for posting rights.

While I disagree with the author's support of Obama (if you didn't know, he supports Obama) but Fletcher's point in this article is serious and I think it should/can be discussed seriously.

anyway, as I was reading the link you provided, I was thinking that were I not following the primaries closely, on DU, on Olbermann, in the debates, I would have no idea what he is talking about.

All of them campaigned only in the first four states, with an occasional visit to California. No, I did not know that Danny Glover is actively campaigning for him. It is just that they concentrated on a fraction of the population and then they expect to win big in Super Tuesday?

But I agree that Edwards' mistake is snuggling himself in the issues of poverty.

The reality is that people in this country do not hate the rich; they want to be the rich. This is why there will never be a true revolution here. The "American Dream" of anyone can climb from extreme poverty to own one's business is alive and well. It is what attracts so many immigrants from developing countries over.

Edwards should have emphasized job creation like improving our infrastructure - that any one can understand - while creating jobs of all skill levels that cannot be outsourced. There are jobs that, say, unemployed car makers can find a better fit than being in a call center or knocking on doors selling sidings.

His attack on corporations missed the point since so many of us do work for corporations, do get decent wages that allow us to access the Internet and to donate to DU and to candidates.

Yes, there are the Enrons of the world but, really, Enron employees had no problem manipulating the grid system - remember their laughing during the California wild fires "burn, baby, burn?" They did not have problems with blind belief in their leaders, until their jobs and their savings disappeared.

I think that his "Two Americas" and fighting words against corporations just put him as a divider, as someone who seeks fights, compared this to the soothing word of Obama seeking "one America."

I may still vote for him. I did so in 2004 and sent him money. But I was really disappointed with him attacking Clinton. He should have taken example from Biden who, at least during the debates, appeared so presidential and knowledgeable of the issues.

That is true. The article posits, and I agree, that the problem is that Edwards ignored race/gender in his populism. This is a common route taken. White populism only works if you are a Republican. The Dem Party represents too many non-whites who have more specific issues. Does Edwards not understand this?

are not synonyms.

just curious.

Is that the problem here??? I thought it was very obvious. Heck. It is completely obvious that the thread title is loaded. But the article delivers. It's not just a thread title. There is an article by a black trade unionist with decades of experience and work under his belt.

If I had known that skins were so surprisingly thin that a thread title would derail 90% of the readership I would not have taken that route and I won't make the same mistake next time I attempt to initiate discussion.

I thought the people responding earlier were just not wanting to deal with the topic but I guess its possible that they really were stuck on the 2 word title. Stuck and couldn't get beyond it. I won't do it again but it is sorta sad, dontcha think, that a political forum with, what, hundreds of thousands of users has this low a rhetorical/intellectual bar to serious discourse.

The thread title?

And really, the thread title isn't THAT bad. We all know that, as well.

who is currently running. It's obviously not a crime, but as you can see, it cuts debate to the quick.

I welcome you to DU.:hi:

is the actual title of the article. Your link says otherwise. That bothers me more than your thread title.

DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.

No one is ever going to be completely happy with any one candidate.


Lame

edit: typo

Even Mr. Fletcher hedges when it comes to declaring the end of Edwards' campaign, and rightly so, in light of the current movement in SC polls. Furthermore, this article completely underrates the power of having celebrity "first" candidates like Obama and Clinton.

It also falls down on political strategy. There was another candidate who tried to run a national campaign, as this article suggests by saying that Edwards should have appeared in Buffalo, and Chinatown, and Appalachia. His name was John Connolly, and is widely regarded to have run the worst campaign ever. Edwards needed to focus on Iowa, or he would have gotten dumped like Biden and Dodd. Within that constraint, Edwards did very well focusing on depressed areas of Iowa.

Did you take a wrong turn?