Could John Edwards win in the West?
This week, I spent a couple of days with Senator John Edwards - the once and future presidential candidate.
I had a chance to ask him about the Western Democrat strategy: changing the map by contesting the inland mountain west. His answer surprised and impressed me. I asked a geographic question, and he gave me a cultural answer.
To paraphrase, he argued that the lesson of the West is that authenticity and plain-speaking is critical. Since I wasn't taking notes (it was a private party), I can't quote him - but he expanded on this thought the next day in Seattle:
"My own view is the next president of the United States, or certainly the one after, is likely to be the single candidate who doesn't sound like a politician," he said. "I want to tell you on a personal level, I'm trying every way I know how not to do it." ... "We've been trained to do the wrong thing," he concluded. "That's the problem." ..."I'm trying to retrain and recondition myself when I get asked a question to actually answer it -- to not say what I've been trained to say, to not say what's careful and cautious..."
Of course, this is exactly what we've been saying here at Western Democrat since the beginning. He may not be a Westerner, but he's clearly learned the lessons of Brian Schweitzer, John Hickenlooper, Ken Salazar, Rocky Anderson (and others).
Not only is he getting authentic, John Edwards seems to have recommitted himself to the populist message of his presidential primary campaign. He made a pitch for a big boost in the minimum wage, fighting poverty, and universal health coverage (truly universal, "not those politician weasel words like 'affordable' or 'access'")
Could a Southerner win in the West? With a populist message and some straight talk, he just might.
Kari Chisholm | July 1, 2006 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Hey,
I'd like to use this for the weekly news diary at the Edwards blog. I thought it was great that the theme of authenticity and engagement ran through so many of the questions.
He got a similar question (at the conference) with a trial lawyer frame at the end. I was shocked to hear when he said that the courtroom is all about credibility and not charisma. If you show competence and credibility then the jury will follow you.
I put the Gnomedex thing up at YouTube if you care to watch it. The road map to the clips and the links are in this kos diary from Friday afternoon: Gnomedex 6.0 hosts Edwards w/video. I'm using your quote in that diary too. Thanks, I forgot to include that question and answer in this first draft.
Posted by: mbair | Jul 2, 2006 7:03:21 AM
I've always been impressed with Edwards - he had so much natural ability to communicate with people during the 2004 primary season.
Is he a great candidate to win the primaries? Well, the most recent Iowa straw poll puts him ahead of the pack. I think he is putting out some serious policy ideas that put people like Hillary to shame (except I dig her Privacy Bill of Rights - that's a political winner overall).
I just worry there is not enough oxygen in the room to support a one-term senator and former vice-presidential candidate. He may be a distinguished candidate and a very accomplished man, but I worry about what his record (or lack therof) does for his hopes.
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Jul 2, 2006 11:06:55 AM
John Edwards is a very bright and very focused campaigner, and he is clearly working on 2008. He has won, however, only a couple of elections: once for the U.S. Senate, and the South Carolina primary in 2004. He seemed invisible during much of the 2004 campaign. Could he do better in the West than Gore, Warner, Bayh, Clark, Feingold, Vilsack, or [fill in your favorite here. See list at http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2008/dems08.html]? Will he win the nomination? I am still hoping for a ticket with Richardson on it, .e.g. Richardson-Napolitano or Richardson-Obama.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 3, 2006 9:59:44 AM
Leo Brown wrote "He has won, however, only a couple of elections"
Didn't Abraham Lincoln lose a bunch of elections until he finally won the presidency? I don't remember the specifics but I recall this as a lesson in grade school to never give up.
Kari Chisholm wrote "Not only is he getting authentic, John Edwards seems to have recommitted himself to the populist message of his presidential primary campaign."
I hope this is true. I was disappointed with his most recent appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulus" because the big thing he focused on was educating poor people in North Carolina, a relatively small project. And he seemed to be caught in the typical Democratic pitfall of just being negative to be negative (which is opposite of why I liked him in 2004) and, to make it more awkward, it was primarly directed at Cheney instead of Bush.
I would love to see him committed to a populist, positive, proactive agenda.
Posted by: Tom Hams | Jul 11, 2006 11:01:05 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
