( - promoted by Mike Caulfield)
If this event was any indication, the tradmed actually has it right: Edwards has shifted his rhetoric in recent weeks. The focus on action is still there, but the populist focus on the powers that would stop action has been broadened and accentuated.
Gone is the longer list of what he's been doing since 2004 with his institute. I don't hear anything about One Corps, or successes in getting the minimum wage raised in other states.
Back in his December 2006 announcement, every question came back to action: what are we going to do about it on the local level, how are we going to work to solve that from the bottom up: and how are you, the audience going to help me do that.
That's gone now too. Now questions from the audience, at least questions about domestic policy, are refocussed just as relentlessly to the issues of corruption, corporate power, lobbyists, and Washington culture. The son of a millworker story is back, albeit this time presented by Elizabeth. Edwards is insistent now not about the power of the people, but the power of the forces that be: "I have ideas I think are good and I'm willing to fight for them with everything I've got," he says, "But there are people who will want to stop me...".
And in the short thirty minute stop it is that idea he pounds in relentlessly: "I don't live there," he tells one man after his rant against Washington politicians, "First of all, don't put me in that crowd -- I don't live there." To another question, he says "What we need is to stand up...you've got no lobbyist in Washington."
"It will not change unless you become satisfied that someone is telling you the truth," he says. "We need a President that will stand up for you. That's exactly what we need."
In other words -- we can't change it now, and we can't change it with the wrong leader in place. Community activism is fine, but ultimately if you want to change things you have to eliminate the Rot at the Top.
I can't help but feel slightly disappointed that he has stepped away from his more ambitious message that mixed equal parts populist anger and community activism, and into the "Washington outsider" campaign we see from some quarter every four years. Not necessarily because I agreed with the first message, but because I'm burned out on the second.
Overall, however, it was an impressive performance, and between the hits at the Washington establishment the brilliance of John dissecting issues was as evident as ever. Insider or outsider, it remains clear he's a talented individual who would make a good President. The rhetoric may be retooled and simplified, but this is the same candidate as before -- and that's a good thing.
Note: The video is embedded below, but if you go here, and click on the "comments" link, you'll see I've created a series of links directly to the main quotes used in this article (as well as other things of interest).
|
