The Angrier Edwards is a Strangely Compelling Edwards...

posted by Damozel | You know, I'll always like Hillary and I'll never get past Obama's promise to invade Pakistan , but neither of them really does a great job of reflecting my feelings about the current state of the union.  Coleridge does, though:  "A stifled, drowsy, unimpassioned grief..."   I might adopt a pose of amused detachment, but that's strictly a precaution against shrieking imprecations and anathema.  Which I refuse to do. There's enough of that in the blogosphere; I want a different mode.

To be honest, despite my Elizabeth-love, I'd about given up on Edwards since a lot of people (especially Republicans) seem to assume that it's going to be Hillary, and I like Hillary.  And there was always something about Edwards that I found slightly off-putting.  And now Chris Cillizza has put his finger on it:  Edwards' sunny, smiling, conciliatory manner.  I'm a Carolinian myself and I know that these conciliatory manners serve the same purpose as my own:  a polite filter between what one really thinks and what one realizes would be hurtful, judgmental, ill-considered, ill-judged, disrespectful.

But hell---or as Edwards and I would say, hail:  sometimes what needed is a really purging dose of controlled---I said controlled---outrage.  Between Hillary 's glassy smoothness and Obama's tractor beam-like charisma, the anger that is really out here among real-world Democrats and some independents just isn't finding a voice.  Maybe Edwards' steadily growing anger is what this campaign needs. 

I used to be drawn to Richardon's chuckly, reassuring Rotary club demeanor.  After all, the country is seriously polarized as it is.  Do we really need more shouting across the divide?  Let's charm them into submission, I said to myself.  Let's show them the error of their ways, but quiety...gently...thoughtfully.  Yes, that's worked well, hasn't it?  Meanwhile: 

At last weekend's YearlyKos presidential debate, Edwards worked himself into a lather on almost every question -- loudly proclaiming the need for real and big change while dismissing the half-measures and compromises advocated by some of his opponents....

The angry Edwards is a marked contrast to the former North Carolina Senator's sunny optimism and unwillingness to attack any of the other candidates during the 2004 elections. Iowans seemed drawn to that positive message, nearly delivering Edwards a stunning victory in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

That Edwards is gone, however, and in his place a candidate who seems intent on showing his disgust and distaste at every chance he gets.

For the moment, the strategy is working. Edwards stood out during the CNN/YouTube debate for his strident denunciations of the inside-the-Beltway culture and his call for bold change. At the YearlyKos debate, Edwards repeatedly brought the crowd to its feet, challenging his Democratic opponents to pledge not to accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.(The Fix)

Now getting the Kossacks worked up by getting into a froth yourself doesn't necessarily prove that this is a good strategy for someone who wants the presidency.  The Kos people specialize in outrage.  Naturally, they're going to go for the candidate who most precisely mirrors their collective state of mind.

But what about the rest of us?  I expect that I am going to vote for the candidate whose views of governance most closely reflect mine.  And mine require progressive goals (mine are no less so than Edwards') to be implemented with care and with due regard for the feelings of people who do not share them.  This is because I believe that sudden, violent reforms have a tendency not to stick.  Introducing reform or changed policies in steps and stages gives opponents the chance to see that the world doesn't end; their taxes don't increase out of all reason; the government doesn't start monitoring their phone calls and emails or intruding on their privacy....oh, wait.

Anyway, as one of the moderate, cautious liberals who so exasperates the "go in and win" sort, I am a little frightened by Edwards.  After all, Bush had vision and ideals too.  I don't know if I'm up for more of that in a president.  I can't say whether it's a good campaign strategy now----after all, as Cillizza points out, it didn't work for Howard Dean once the primaries rolled round.  Though there again, maybe the people who decided Dean was too angry will stop now and say to themselves will recall that the alternative we selected was John Kerry.  I mean, Dean wouldn't have stood there and let himself get swiftboated, now would he?  He'd have struck back---and hard.  He'd have lost the election anyway, I imagine, but at least we wouldn't all have ended up feeling so frustrated, so humiliated, so falsely presented.

Watching Edwards get angry, watching him mirror the disgust which so many of us feel (and not only with the Bush Administration), makes me feel a sort of release of internal pressure.  "A drowsy, stifled, unimpassioned grief" = depression (or, to use the language of Coleridge's time, "dejection.")  Feeling dejected makes it hard to achieve any clarity about what you actually want.  The new Edwards is a cathartic.  I need this.  Hillary should take note.

What will Edwards do to restore balance to the three branches of government?   This is where he says that it's time to begin reforming the Democratic party now and that the first step should be the refusal to accept a dime from the Washington lobbyists.

Clinton came under attack for declining to join former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who is quite popular with bloggers, and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in pledging to not take campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

"I think my party, the Democratic Party, the party of the people, ought to say from this day forward we will never take a dime from a lobbyist," Edwards said to rising applause from the audience of more than 1,000. ClintonAsked whether she would agree with that, said, "I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest."

With that there were groans and hisses, and Clinton, who had braced for such a reaction and seemingly had waited for it through nearly an hour of debate, responded: "I've been waiting for this. This gives us a real sense of reality with my being here." She added, "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." (Washington Post) 

Yeah but...you don't have to take their money, right?  Though at the same time, I'm not sure it's a good idea to encourage an us/them mentality vis-a-vis Washington lobbyists which is maybe what Hillary was saying? 

Edwards on special interests:

Edwards on Iraq:  I don't agree with his views on troop withdrawal for reasons I've stated elsewhere but again...it's the passion that draws me in.

Edwards on health care (note nods by Hillary and Obama):

Edwards on affirmative action:

His views on affirmative action, sadly, are likely to ensure that he WON'T get elected, but....he's right.  When he talks about growing up during desegregation, he speaks to me.  He and I are from the same neck of the woods.  Everything he says is absolutely 100% correct.

DAMN....I feel a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION coming on....my first for the 2008 election...and despite my affection for Hillary C. 

LINKED, CITED, OR QUOTED:

• Chris Cillizza, John Edwards: Mad as Hell (The Fix)
• Dan Balz and Jose Antonio Vargas, Bloggers Give Clinton a Mixed Reception (Washington Post)
• Dan Balz, Obama Says He Would Take Fight to Pakistan (Washington Post)
• Michael Scherer, Stalking Hillary (Salon)

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS:
[Elizabeth] Edwards for President!  (The Salon Interview)

Elizabeth Edwards Asks Ann Coulter to be More Civil; Ann Interprets Request as Equivalent to Demand that She Stop Speaking.

Comments

[Frigga]

I stopped in to let you know I posted the results of last weeks TT13's Food Edition. It's up at http://anyapples.blogspot.com/ if you want to take a look!

~Frigga :P

[Lee]

Where have you been. all the anger expressed
as you say, to me is not anger, but what
John Edwards says in every conversation, every meeting, every speech he makes. The
other candidates are just not as honest as
Edwards is. On affirmative action he won't
win, what exactly does that mean.? The laws on affirmative action are still in effect, although they are challenged constantly, what's that got to do with John Edwards. The only affirmative action we have now has generally benefited white women, who now have the opportunity to sit in corporate board rooms across the country. The conservative court is not going away anytime soon and they are the ones who will move affirmative action back to the fifties. Hopefully John Edwards will pick only judges who will be fair to all the people of the country, if he ever has a chance. I am hoping that Hillary does the same thing if she has the chance.