Edwardians, did you write OPs addressing the "phoniness issue" head-on?

It's a genuine question, because the only poster's habits I can speak for are my own. It's clear to all concerned that the reason John Edwards didn't garner more support close to home (on DU, for example) is that people did not trust him. I feel like I didn't address that issue enough in my own OPs, choosing instead to be reactive, as people brought it up. Perhaps if I had written a bunch of threads about people who trusted John Edwards, why I trust John Edwards, why he's a better bet than the other candidates...taking his apparent weakness head-on rather than focusing on his stance on the issues. The issue advocacy was quite successful. Everyone knows that John Edwards has the most progressive platform, even people who say they don't trust him. Perhaps if the trust issue had been addressed more strongly, and earlier, it could have been put to rest. I don't know, maybe it was, and people just didn't listen.

Thoughts?

I've checked quite a bit of things about all of the candidates, and Edwards seems pretty clean to me. :shrug:

to come up with actual evidence or something. I know, crazy, right?

He consistently wins every DU poll by a landslide. I think maybe it's the fact that Edwards supporters aren't loud and "viscous" (sic) that creates the illusion that other candidates have more support.

:shrug:

As for writing OPs, I don't feel that concerned about convincing anyone on DU that Edwards is the candidate to vote for. One reason is the aforementioned polling, and the other is that I'd prefer to promote him in person among my friends and acquaintances, because they have less exposure to the issues due to the MSM and are more likely to listen to reasoned arguments. And personally, I think the trust issue is (for the most part) trumped up hogwash that doesn't deserve a response.

edited for typo and clarity

It's all in the perception. His populist voting history has been posted over and over again, his stances on the important issues of the day, his economic strengths, and so on. Some people will NOT see past the "trial lawyer" prejudice and see the man behind them.

So be it.

all throughout the race. You can't really think that nothing changed from then and now.

He's bucking history. Making history, specifically. Both the other candidates will make history simply by being nominated, much less winning. One southern white guy, regardless of his positions on the issues, has a hard row to hoe trying to compete.

was good enough for me.

There are still a couple of highly visible posters on DU who go after Edwards as being a "phony" even now - but I have also seen many DU'ers supporting other candidates write that Edwards himself has swayed them with his trustworthiness and deep sincerity.

So far as John Edwards being sincere and truly believing in helping the less fortunate - I have never had any doubt on that score.

of the 2008 election. People laughed and said "No one way!" Or else they said "He really is a phony." Later in the year, I also predicted the "Hillary is a Bitch" and the "Obama is a Black Muslim" big lies (the last is only now unfolding---part of the Divide and Conquer thing about race that the MSM is setting up is designed to make Obama and his followers look like a bunch of scary Black Panthers, completely destroying the impression of a coalition of all Americans that he had worked so hard to create).

The problem with being able to see what the MSM is doing and telling people what they are up to is that lots of times they do not listen or believe until the damage is done. The campaigns themselves have to take charge.

There were days the Greatest page had five--even ten--threads not about John Edwards.

His narrative representing SC in the Senate was that of a centrist hawk with populist leanings. His narrative in '04 was positive, sunny, and can-do. His narrative in '08 is ferocious, defiant, and unapologetically populist.

Any of those narratives could be reasonably applied to his record--there are plenty of bad votes for each, but no politician's record perfectly matches his narrative. And really, people don't remember individual votes. They remember narratives and messages. John Edwards had the distinct disadvantage of pushing a different narrative than people remembered. And--unfortunately for him--trial lawyers are already seen as being slick-talkers; he unwittingly fed that in his repositioning.

However, he had to reposition himself that way. Obama stole his '04 image and magnified it; Obama was like '04 Edwards on steroids, both in positives and in negatives. Clinton had a firm grasp on the establishment line. Edwards did the smartest thing he reasonably could, but it was an uphill battle all the way.

can change his voting record and the fact that he didn't stand up for progressive values as a Senator in the same way he is now. Its hard to argue that fact away when you've got someone like Obama who has a long history of fighting progressive battles.

How about choice? That's a progressive value right? Edwards garnered a 100% rating from NARAL.

You are demonstrating the problem, and maybe you would know better if I had written posts differently.

See above.

Obama. I see the problem as the dishonest and far fetched attempts by Edwards supporters to paint Obama as something he is not. It bothers me that if Obama is the nominee it could continue to hurt him if liberals still believe the false perceptions of Obama as a conservative.

Edwards ran a positive campaign in '04 talking about his own values, but this time I kind of resent the dishonest hack job from Sirota and many other Edwards supporters that dishonestly slimed Obama as a conservative. It lowered my opinion of Edwards. Obama couldn't order lunch without someone spinning it into a "right wing talking point" and supposed proof that he isn't liberal. It was ridiculous.

Edwards never got higher than 0% from a pro-life group. See how easy it is to swiftboat a record?

Obamites swiftboated Edwards. Whenever Edwards' record is put on the table they run and pretend they didn't see the post. The folks who complain the most about his record know the least about it. They are either lying shills for Obama or fell for the Obama campaign's concerted online effort to swiftboat Edwards among the netroots.

Where do you get that?

in explicitly anti-edwards posts.

But remember at the SC debate, when Hillary and Obama started trading "Rezko!" and "Wal-mart!" accusations, and it sounded like DU? What gets discussed at the most informed levels matters just as much as what gets discussed at the least connected levels, because some of the stuff does filter down, or show up in other places later.

we are all goldfishes in a goldfish tank.

Sometimes we get fed good and bad fish food.

And that it doesn't match his rhetoric and there is no way to take that on in any viable way.

Yes, he has a mostly progressive voting record, HOWEVER, he has also cast some very disturbing votes that undermine his "take it to them" message AND when you look deeply into his own plans, you find they don't match the rhetoric in his campaign.

Here are the problems:

He shakes his finger of shame at Clinton for not "apologizing" for the Iraq vote, as if it is the apology that makes the difference (It doesn't) and trying to shame someone else on this issue is/was incredibly insincere.

He claims to be a champion for the impoverished against corporations BUT

- Voted for the Bankrupcy bill which was a huge give to corporations, giving them significant power over the little guy.
- Supports a health insurance plan that winds up being a big gift to insurance companies.
- Worked for and received significant donations from a hedge fund company up to it's earns in Predatory lending (which he later came out agains)


He claims to want to eliminate 2 Americas BUT

- His tax plan continues to give a more favorable rate to Capital Gains (money making money) over earned Income (working for a living).


He claims he doesn't accept money from lobbyists or corporations, but a quick check of Opensecrets.org finds that to be untrue.



The problem with John Edwards was John Edwards and that if he lived in a glass house, he shouldn't have thrown stones.

There is still time to do it. We should defend the truth about his record at every chance while fighting fire with fire against the campaign whose internet operatives starting this BS in the first place on the netroots.