A John Edwards Surge? (Huffington Post)

A John Edwards Surge?
By Ian Welsh--Huffington Post
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
----
So noted Glenn Greenwald yesterday noting a Rasmussen daily tracking poll showing Edwards up about 6% nationally while Clinton drops and Obama stays about evenly nationally.

I confess that my own take was that if Edwards didn't win Iowa his chances were very slim. These numbers seem to indicate otherwise. Admittedly, it's quite clear that NH will probably go heavily Obama, and the historical pattern has been for that to translate into a further bump in the early states.

However, if I were Edwards and I was tracking similiar numbers to these, I simply would not drop out based on the early states, especially if the trend continues. And, while Clinton's numbers are clearly dropping (and, as Glenn notes, they are transfering to Edwards, not Obama) at this point, if I were her, I'd be worried, but not yet panicking.

It ain't over yet. Obama's got the momentum, but he needs to start moving those national numbers or he's going to hit a brick wall.

I find this very interesting because of the lack of coverage that Edwards has received in the media. He shouldn't be getting this surge, it just shouldn't be happening. That means that something about him and his message is getting through.

Perhaps it has something to do with the tired phrase "change", which this election is supposedly about.

Earlier today I read an article by Ari Berman at The Nation. In it Ari goes over the Clinton and Obama foreign policy teams in detail - 4 long pages. Edwards foreign policy gets one slightly dismissive paragraph:

The top Democrat who puts the least emphasis on foreign affairs and has the fewest number of advisers, John Edwards, has paradoxically said some of the most interesting things during the campaign. Edwards has called the "war on terror" a "bumper sticker, not a plan," and has opposed enlarging the Army, citing the "little rationale given for exactly why we need this many troops." Days before the Iowa caucuses, he more sharply distinguished his position on Iraq from those of Clinton and Obama by calling for a near-total pullout of US forces within ten months. However, in foreign policy circles Edwards's knowledge of world affairs is considered thin, and on the stump he's far more passionate about domestic issues like poverty and trade. His main foreign policy adviser, Mike Signer, was an aide to former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, and his longtime national security adviser in the Senate, Derek Chollet, is a Holbrooke protege and a fellow at the Center for New American Security, a centrist think tank working to align Democrats closer to the military. Both are relatively hawkish; Signer wrote an essay in 2006 calling for a doctrine of "exemplarism," which he labeled "a militarily strong and morally ambitious version of American exceptionalism."

Remarkable. Just remarkable - John Edwards gets one paragraph, even though Ari admits that the differences between his foreign policy and that of Clinton and Obama is much greater than that between Clinton's and Obama's. And the reason is probably that he doesn't have a huge board of "experts" to foist the Beltway's conventional wisdom on him.

Forget dueling foreing policy establishments, Edwards basic frame is far more progressive and forward looking than Obama's or Clinton's. He doesn't believe in a "war on terror" and he doesn't want to add 92,000 new troops.

As noted, Obama and Clinton get more time in the piece, and the guy who wants to stop the insanity isn't taken seriously. The US spends over 50% of the world's military budget and is losing two wars to rabble, yet Obama and Clinton think it should raise more troops? Does "good money after bad" mean nothing to these folks?
(...)
The US's foreign policy establishment is deeply sick from end to end. The Neocons are only the most gangenous extremity.

And John Edwards is the only one of the three proposing anything really different. The only one really proposing "change". Lord knows he's not perfect (the Agonist attacked his "all options" statement with regards to Iran) but saying the war on terror is counterproductive was the equivalent of saying "the emperor has no clothes".
(...)
Because it's time to end the War on "Terror" and it's time to stop pandering to the military industrial complex. And of the big 3 Democratic candidates, only Edwards has the eyes to see this and the guts to say it. Of the Big 3, on foreign policy, only Edwards is for "change".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-welsh/a-john-edwards-surge_b_80380.html

'Obama Edwards 08'

or 'Edwards Obama 08'

I don't mind either way

But Edwards had better rally soon if he wants to be Prez.

earlier in the year at a fund raiser I was helping with. He sounded quite knowledgable. He has traveled extensively since he left the 04 campaign and hasn't been in office.

I'm not a supporter now, I'm for Kucinich, but I must say his knowledge seemed pretty impressive to me.

If you are serious about supporting Edwards & you are in the position to donate (this, of course, does not pertain to people who financially are unable), please send him cash.

Remember, if you donate through his site, he will receive matching public campaign funds up to 250. So, your impact will be doubled. 50.00 becomes a hundred. The max of 250 turns into 500.

GO, JOHNNY, GO!

but as I said, I support Kucinich.

.... John ran to the phone to read Musharraf the riot act. The other candidates ran to a microphone to pontificate.

Shame on The Nation. Shame on Ari.

The wave Obama is riding could soon break.

K&R

Obama HAS NOT been tested by any tough questions.. Does everybody want to annoint him only to find out the guy can't find his car keys when the Free Ride IS OVER? :think:

How many tough questions do you remember being asked of the current psychotic corporate whore in his two Presidential selection campaigns?

come out... :)

I think. He might. I hope he does.

Go John E. Go! :bounce:

:bounce:

:thumbsup:

to keep John Edwards from raising money.

Fer "The CORPORATION!" :puke:

Bloomberg. This is why Bloomberg keeps his flirtation with running
going. The elites(establishment) in both parties, yes our own party
are threatened by the idea of populist candidate. You know they
keep saying on TV no one from the extremes or Bloomberg gets in.

For the moment it seems Obama has been able to allay fears by
running as a Centrist New Democrat. Heard this on C Rose and the
Glenn Beck Show. Strange I had never watched that show and
was surfing around and there I found a reporter explaining to
Beck that since Obama is running as centerist Democrat, this
gives Bloomberg no reason to run.

These type polls make Elitist uncomfortable. Former Senator Cohen--
(Part of that Group in Ok who are all psyched out over the condition
of our country and some say they are trying to push for a Bloomber
Presidency. They of course deny it, but Bloomberg is there in the
middle of things. We shall see. They will have an answer by Feb5.

Any way Cohen was on Cnn last week saying the Candidates are out
there making promises they can never keep. This should tell you
where the establishment mindset is. Now you know why the Corporate
Media has ignored him and tried to marginalize him. His messag
of looking out for the peoples interest does not make them happy.

Only Centrist(Pro Business Democrats make them happy). Edwards is
not anti-business. He only wants fairness.

It is not in their best interest to acknowledge any poll which might
reflect well of Edwards.



Edwards is anything but extreme but to Elitist in both parties

:kick:

Hangin' with John all the way! He is the "real" agent for change. Something to really "hope" for is an Edwards presidency!

Apparently, debates with less people are good for him. He gets more opportunity to say what needs to be said. If that's the case, we may see this surge continue. :thumbsup:

and for John Edwards.

IT IS ALREADY 2008....

----GET YOUR "ADULT" KIDS TO REGISTER NOW TO VOTE...

IF YOU WILL BE OUT OF TOWN... GET REGISTERED TO VOTE BY MAIL----

AND REMIND YOUR FRIENDS THAT DUE TO THE UNEXPECTED HIGH TURNOUT....

DEMOCRATS WILL BE VOTING ON NOVEMBER 4

REPUBLICANS WILL BE VOTING ON NOVEMBER 5


.....AND NO MATTER WHO WINS THE PRIMARY.... VOTE DEMOCRAT VOTE OFTEN

He made 13 million dollars suing doctors but then complains about how unfordable of medicine is for the average American. Then most doctors and critics say that the lawsuits are one of the main reasons for the high rise in medical costs.

This is hypocrisy at it's worse and that worries me.

Now if I'm wrong please fill me in.

BTW I'm hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket or vise-versa...that really doesn't matter to me.

in all the states that have passed laws putting a cap on malpractice awards, the cost of health care and malpractice insurance have continued to go up.

Guess what? Med Mal reform doesn't work. Thank your lucky stars if some day you're injured and you have an attorney to turn to for help.

Insurance should be socialized. Why do you need to have profits intervere with sharing risk? Why are the drug companies making such huge profits that some of our citizens have to go without? Do you believe what the doctors and critics say?

Welcome to DU.

As much a victim of the insurance companies as the patients are. No real doctor will turn a patient away, Insurance companies do it by the minute.

What we need is regulations and laws similar to those that govern hiring practices that tell insurance companies they cannot discriminate or turn someone away--Period! They must also got through a federal review board if they wish to raise prices and and excessive profits would be taxed at a 99.99% rate.

more equitable.

Do you want to go through that hell with you health coverage? They need to be heavily regulated like the utilities. Also they need to pass a law that if you cannot pay your medical bill it should not count against your credit rating.

Have you seen Sicko yet? People who live in countries with socialized medicine seem to like it. In fact, not a single country that's ever adopted socialized medicine has ever gotten rid of it. Wonder why? Could it be because it works and the people who have it like it?

:patriot:

-Laelth

Go through what hell? I've renewed my drivers license (and my auto registration) numerous times and I have never had any problems. I don't have a passport but I've seen family members get them without a hitch. I'm not going to claim that no one has ever had any problems. I'm sure that someone somewhere has, that's just reality. But I've never seen it.

However, I have had problems with health insurance companies. Thankfully, I haven't experienced the horror stories I've seen others experience but I have had to argue on the phone a few times, either to get something covered or to straighten out a billing mistake.

And as long as we're going to compare government services to corporations, I should mention the time the phone company (corporation) cut off my phone and internet service due to a clerical error. They gave me an estimated time of one month to restore it. I filed a complaint with the state utility commission (government) and it was restored within a week and a half.

I'm not going to claim that government is perfect or that corporations are constantly screwing up, but I'm getting tired of the strawman casting of government as some hopeless maze of bureaucracy and private enterprise as the solution to all problems.

What I really don't understand is why they always use a government agency that I've never had a problem with, the DMV, as their example.

Have you driven on an interstate highway lately? What about rural electrification? Library? Did you go to high school? Been to a national or state park or monument? This is a mixed economy. Some situations work best with socialization, primarily things that share infrastructure, and some work best with capitalism, with proper regulation. Insurance should be a shared risk, and not bogged down or made too expensive with profits.
Let's provide health care for everyone. How can we do otherwise? It is so simple to me. Do you want to watch people die for lack of health care, it is too easy to get in that position even if you are the hardest working, non-lazy person on the planet. Your heart is in the right place, I can tell. Ponder it a little 7 of YO eleven a front line winner!

I can mention water, power and gas reliability, these are industries that are heavily regulated and subsidized for the poor and it's a system that works and is not bordering on bankruptcy. Or what about the postal service. It really is a great service and much cheaper than Fed-ex or UPS. Or garbage collection. My point is that a hybrid government regulated/private insurance that charges fees based on your spendable income level will work much better for us than a Canadian style system. Why, because the insurance companies know how to do it. The government does not. The problem lies in the fact that we allow private insurance companies to make and keep HUGE profits at the expense of human life and quality thereof, and that should be absolutely illegal.

When the Government learns how to ban the placement of profits before the welfare people we will have reached a mile stone in human social development.

We don't have to go round and round, but you should join the merry-go-round, IOW, get on the bus.

:hi:

I renewed my Driver's License last summer at my local office and I was in and out in about an hour. Not a big deal at all. And I'm also planning on renewing my passport this year too. But I'm doing it well in advance of any trips I plan to take, so timelines aren't that big a deal to me.

I would be very glad of our healthcare system ran as well as our DMV. I want a National Health Care Service, I don't want private insurers involved at all. They should be restricted to providing cosmetic surgery payouts and perhaps top up luxury plans, not good basic medical care.

You are buying into he sued innocent poor doctors and this was not the case. Are you not to sue when an incompetent Dr./Surgeon removed the wrong leg, or the hospital gave your wife medicine she was allergic to which left her in a coma. His cases were never frivolous but that is what the GOP would have you believe. How does this compare to Cheney reaping millions from an invasion which killed over 600,000 innocent Iraqis. John is no hypocrite. He's been fighting for and defending the poor and middle class from corporate malfeasance for years. I would hope he would sue those responsible for the Katrina fiasco. Jeb Bush's "pump failure" from defective levee pump which he had been forewarned about and did nothing to correct...he should be sued for the damages resulting...yet nothing is done. But an attorney winning and getting 1/4 of the settlement would amount to many millions. This is a poor reason to reject Edwards.

This is like the auto companies claiming that safety features make cars more expensive. It makes them more expensive to PRODUCE!!! The reality is that they charge whatever the market will bear. EVERY business does.

Republicans tote this line because they want legal impediments to being sued. One of the reasons lawyers can afford to take on claims is because of punitive damage awards. So if they cap damages it will be far less likely that damage lawyers can finance their practices based on the few winners they will have out of the majority of losing cases that will be net losses.

In some cases net losses ARE appropriate. Unfortunately, tort reform is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. It punishes ethical attorneys (and plantiffs) that bring reasonable suits. It handcuffs judges from awarding actual damages (over the plantiffs lifetime) and substitutes an arbitrary cap. The real problem is attorneys who take frivolous lawsuits under the knowledge that most suits are settled quickly. There have to be mechanisms in place by which a judge can evaluate some criteria and fine lawyers who bring nonsense lawsuits. This would bring down the number of cases and THAT would reduce the burden on doctors.

Don't think the insurance companies are interested in the burden on doctors. They're not. They're worried about their bottom line. The big damages where the doctors are REALLY negligent are where they are losing money, not the chump change out of court settlements. Capping damages means they make more money. They could give a rip less about the doctors.

:dem:

-Laelth

I'd like to see him nominated for Attorney General. I think that he'd make a great one. Gods know, that office needs to be cleaned out and fumigated!

The money party, the corporate elite are trying to block Edwards at all costs.
They do not want his message getting out or gaining momentum. Since the MSM is trying to silence him it is up to his supporters to keep him and his message before the public. It is an -industrial-military-MEDIA-complex that we must fear. The corporate owned media(something our founders never could have imagined we would let happen to the 'fourth estate',-the MSM) has become a propaganda machine, well oiled, and spouting a very biased slant on our politics. They will block anyone trying to remove their power and influence. Operation Mockingbird (the CIA's plan to infiltrate and influence the MSM by money, favors and blackmail which a recent CIA director boasted of) has been operating since the '50s and with ownership of the media falling into fewer and fewer hands their influence is easier to peddle. People who would remove their influence and power like Edwards and Kucinich, are simply prevented from getting any positive coverage.

The more they exclude Edwards and Kucinich the stronger my support for them becomes. Obama and Clinton are progressive but still open to allowing corporate voices to direct the discussion. Only Kucinich and Edwards are standing up against what FDR called these "Economic Royalists" when America was once before faced the very same conditions it faces today

Yes. Unfortunately the media has its own agenda. Any real change seems to be blocked at every turn. There is really no point to any push for change unless and until the "Economic Royalists" and more specifically the military industrial complex are confronted head on.

I think this will continue. As things stand, delegate count is: O=25, C=23, E=19 out of 4,049. His message is getting through, even without media reporting. People are finding it.

to 16% for Obama and 12% for Clinton.

The news of the Clinton campaign's death was greatly exaggerated.

As for Ed's lack of coverage... uh... maybe it's because he has virtually no hope at winning the nom? And maybe the MSM wants to concentrate on someone who might still be newsworthy in November?

In case you haven't noticed, Ed just got his ass kicked in NH.

2 down, 48 more states for JRE to lose.

is gaining voters. That's an amazing thng in light that of the fact the media is terrified of him because he's the only candidate telling the truth about what's going on in this country with corporations. I think he'll be our next president. If not, at least our next VP. :-D

Not in NH he didn't. And he certainly won't in SC, where he is not supported by the AA community that makes up 50% of the dem primary voters.

of the primary period. He is the underdog, yet he's getting a huge turnout. What bothers you so much about all that? The fact that he's taking votes from someone else? The fact that I voted for him on absentee ballot? The fact that he's doing so good despite the media's fear and blocking of any news about him? Hmm?

It will most likely be over on Super Tuesday, Feb 5, and it started on January 3 in Iowa. Where are the months?

And that is the a very good place to be. The primary is young and now it looks like it will go the full length. So, there is plenty of time to get these issues out, to define the differences between his progressive, economic populist ideas and the two corporate, war hawks.

From a democracy viewpoint, it's the best outcome, to give all the states a chance.

At least he had the decency to admit he was wrong about the war. Not that it matters, since the war machine is fully supported by the power elites in both parties. But he doesn't seem to think we should nuke other countries as a general rule...that's a good thing.

Just for the record. B-)

But Obama made a major speech about foreign policy on October 2nd. I suggest y'all read it.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

In this speech, Obama sets himself apart from those (including both Hillary and Edwards) who voted to give Bush the authorization to launch a military assault on Iraq.

After you have read Obama's speech, then come back here and try to tell me that "Of the Big 3, on foreign policy, only Edwards is for "change"."

Then I will say "Give me a break. That's the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard!" B-)

...the next several years thanks to all the damage Bush has done. Hence, I'm
still supporting Edwards.

First of all, his chances are between 'makkes' and 'bupkes' as they say in Yiddish. (translation not needed, but bupkes, literally, means "beans"). Since Edwards can't win, there remains the issue, as in Kucinich's candidacy, what specific issues or platform he is running on that needs a LOUD (LOUDER than Kucinich) advocate at the Convention and beyond. Hopefully, Kucinich (who got my MA vote in 04, as Kerry was already the presumptive nominee), will have learned his lesson and keep the core of his organization together to start a MASS progressive organization starting Nov 08 (NO MATTER WHO WINS, WE'LL NEED THAT).

But Edwards' platform isn't spectacularly different from Obama's and HRC's, and he isn't identified with any particular issue beyond the 'two Americas'/generic populist rhetoric that he has tried to campaign on. So the most likely reason for staying in would be, possibly by showing continuing electoral "strength", to run as VP on the ticket, this time maybe to actually occupy the office of VP (God and the FBI willing). The same is true about Bill Richardson, who in one debate almost explicitly made a bid (favorably received by HRC) for the VP spot on her ticket.

The question remains, who would benefit from Edwards dropping out? Would Obama consolidate the anti- or at least non-Hillary vote? Or is there something to the claim some make that HRC would get most of Edwards' votes? It seems to me that if the election boils down to Obama v HRC, with Kucinich as a left protest candidate, it would be BEST for Obama, ESPECIALLY IF EDWARDS BACKS OUT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, instead of waiting to see if S Carolina resurrects him as a 'possible' winner (not likely).

I think that, just as many SEEM to have overestimated Obama's vote in NH, there has been even MORE overestimation of Edwards'.

ring true or resonate with past elections. Bill Clinton never won Iowa or NH, yet somehow he was a two term president.

in that his endorsement for either of them will send his supporters in that direction. He has the power to really derail either leader's campaign.

I think he knows it and it;s a great place to be to get what you want.