NOVEMBER 9, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Obama's quote about John Edwards in today's Washington Post interview seems to be getting a little attention. It caught my eye, too. Here's what Obama said:
"John wasn't this raging populist four years ago when he ran" for the previous Democratic nomination, Obama said. "He certainly wasn't when he ran for the U.S. Senate. He was in the U.S. Senate for six years, and as far as I can tell wasn't taking on the lobbyists and special interests. It's a matter of, do you walk the walk that you talk?"
"If John wants to make the comparison between the work I did as a community organizer--or as a civil rights attorney or as a state senator taking on special interests--to him working as a trial lawyer making millions of dollars, I'm happy to have that discussion."
For what it's worth, I have a piece in our forthcoming issue assessing the authenticity of Edwards's populist shtick. (Short version: it's pretty authentic.) In the meantime, it's worth pointing out that, authentic or not, Edwards's critique of Hillary is starting to seep down to the grassroots. Among other examples, a liberal group called Iowans for Sensible Priorities endorsed Edwards today. In explaining the decision, the group's executive director told ABC: "[Clinton] didn't answer any questions 'yes' or 'no ... She has a refusal to commit to anything"--which sounds like it could have come right out of Edwards's mouth.
We'll see in the next several days if the polls reflect the same thing.
--Noam Scheiber
5 comments
Obama was nowhere six years ago, so who is he kidding? Edwards is CLEARLY running on principles and priorities that mean a lot to him. If Obama cared half as much about his positions, Hillary would already be toast and Obama would be the front runner. I can't figure out what is wrong with Obama - he is the most talented guy aside from Bill that the Democrats have on their side -- but he has zero fire in the belly. His criticism of Edwards is not only lame - it reminds us of what is wrong with Barack. There is no there there.
Neil
- purcellneil
November 9, 2007 at 7:36pm
Neil, you have indeed figured out what's wrong with Obama. If you want to be president, you have to have passion-- passion for a cause if possible but at a minimum, passion for taking and wielding _power_. That's where the instinct for the jugular comes from, the willingness to mix it up. For all the man's grace and charm, we simply have not seen any real passion or steel in the spine from Obama, and I doubt we ever will. For all Edwards' flaws, his cause and his passion are clear to everyone.
- teplukhin2you
November 10, 2007 at 3:44am
The root of Edwards's authenticity: PAIN.
For all his legal eagle millions, Edwards has experienced what is possibly the worst suffering known to man: the loss of a child.
There's been a lot of talk about biographies both with respect to Obama and Edwards, but one thing I think you can say for sure about JE is that when he pulls a Bill Clinton and says to a constituent "I feel your pain," he knows whereof he speaks.
- aeromonas
November 10, 2007 at 9:10am
It is good to see that Edwards is getting some traction. His assessment of HRC is correct; she likes to give two separate answers to each question. This is disappointing as she is clearly intelligent, should be able to answer the questions put to her, but chooses to dissemble. But I disagree with aeromonas about the root of Edwards’ authenticity. Experiences, including pain, can help build understanding and wisdom. The root of Edwards’ authenticity, however, comes from his intelligence. He has good ideas and wants to act on them. Rather than having a W swagger, or an HRC 'I have lived in the White House before' so vote for me reasoning, he is running on ideas, many of which are populist. As to Obama, he seems to be forgetting that the actions of the GOP for the last decade have shown that catering only to business, industry, and the wealthy have had legitimate negative consequences for the middle class and the poor, have grown the national debt exponentially, and have left us with shortfalls in the revenues needed to manage the boomer's retirement. This has made many more populist. The question should be not where was Edwards' populism four years ago, but where is Obama's today? I still have a sad suspicion that Obama is only running this time in preparation for a future presidential campaign in 2012, or that he looking for the veep nod from HRC.
- hepneck
November 10, 2007 at 2:11pm
The truth is, the Democrats don't really have a good candidate. Every one of them has serious flaws.
This is true for the Republicans to a certain extent. But, not nearly as starkly.
- ChanRobt
November 11, 2007 at 10:49pm