a really striking contrast. Kerry seems to be channeling al gore, and while i think edwards was too callow for 2004, he's definitely one of the more interesting politicians in the country, and his pure political skills are almost clintonian. i'm wary of the class warfare tone of much of his message, but he's speaking for a group of people now that few others are interested in, except as a way to furhter demonize bush and rove. http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/09/23/opinions/hjjejahgjjhbjb.txt -- Kerry, Edwards message differs By David Brooks - 09/23/2005 John Kerry and John Edwards ran for office together and they lost together, and they both gave major speeches about Katrina this week, but there the similarity ends. The two men might as well live in different worlds. Kerry began his speech by making the point that Bush and his crew are rotten. He then went on to make the point that Bush and his crew are loathsome. In the third section of the speech, Kerry left the impression that Bush and his crew are evil. Now we all know people so consumed by hatred for George Bush that they haven't had an unpredictable thought in five years, but in Kerry's speech one sees this anger in almost clinical form. In the first place, not even Karl Rove's worldview is so obsessively Bush-centric as John Kerry's. There are many interesting issues raised by Katrina, but for Senator Ahab it all goes back to the great white monster, Bush. Bush and his crew should have known the levees were weak. Bush and his crew should have known thousands in New Orleans would be trapped. (Did I miss Kerry's own warnings on these subjects?) All reality flows back to Bush. All begins with Bush, ends with Bush, is explained by Bush and is polluted by Bush, cursed be thy name. And as the speech stretches on, a second thought occurs: Doesn't this guy ever get bored? If Kerry ever makes an anti-Bush jab, he makes it again. The old DeLay jibes, he makes them again. The Wolfowitz attacks, he makes them again. p*rn movies have less repetition than this, and yet the ‘‘Mission Accomplished'' carrier deck scene gets hauled out again, for one feels this is not a normal speech designed to persuade or inform, but a primitive rite designed to channel group outrage. John Edwards' speech had a different feel. Edwards took some hard shots at Bush, some of them deserved, but having left Washington after the election, Edwards is not so obsessed with power struggles. In his talk he roamed outward and spoke about the complexities of actual life. He mentioned that the typical white family has about $80,000 in assets, while the typical Hispanic family has about $8,000, and the typical African-American family has about $6,000. That's an astonishing gap. Edwards mentioned a woman in Kansas City who makes $9.50 an hour and can't pay her utility bills. He mentioned a boy in Chicago who designed a T-shirt about his absent father. It reads: ‘‘You won't be there. Should have, could have, would have.'' The T-shirt has a hole cut out in the shape of a heart. Edwards weaved a story about the gnarly complexities of poverty in this country, about the tangled and reinforcing feedback loops that run between family breakdowns and economic insecurity. He concluded with a series of policy recommendations fit for the post-welfare-reform world. No conservative would agree with all of them, but nobody could fail to find them interesting. While the old welfare policies allowed people to evade the world of work and enabled people to drop out of school and have children, Edwards proposed a series of policies designed to encourage work, to encourage responsibility, to help the poor build assets. The Kerry-Edwards contrast is characteristic of the argument that now divides the Democratic Party. On one side are those who believe that the party's essential problem is with its political style. The Republicans win because they are simply rougher, so the Democrats must be just as tough in response. They must match Karl Rove blow for blow. Democrats in this camp are voting against John Roberts just to show the world, and their donors above all, that they are willing to give no quarter. On the other side are those who believe that the Democratic defeats flow from policy problems, not from campaign style or message framing. They don't believe that Democrats can win wrapped in their own rage, or kowtowing endlessly to their psychologically aggrieved donor base. For them, the crucial challenge is to come up with policies more in tune with voters. Kerry speaks for the first group, which believes in more partisanship, and Edwards for the second, which believes in less. I have discussions with my Democratic friends over whether the party will snap back to Clintonite centrism after the polarizing Bush leaves town. Some think yes. I suspect no. As Kerry's speech shows, the emotional tenor of the party has changed. The donors are aroused. Bush may end up changing the Democratic Party more than his own. DAVID BROOKS is a columnist for the New York Times.
One thing I obersved during the last election (gosh how could I miss the good fun in Clutch BBS D&D), Edwards talked a lot about the problems but never really offered meaningful solutions. On the other hand, Kerry had some plans, but they didn't seem to resonate with the voters.
everyone wants to hear that SOMETHING will be done but no one is really interested in what that SOMETHING is because once it becomes CONCRETE it is open to critizism and reality Rocket River
The major difference between Clinton and Edwards is in regards to their knowledge of the world. Clinton wasn't just a 'charmer', he's a man that knew his stuff and could play with the 'big dogs', while Edwards can't do that. In honor of Mr. Jennings (RIP), in one of the presidential debates he asked a simple -- yet genius -- question to Mr. Edwards: "Tell me what do you know about Islam and the Muslim world?". Edwards' stunning reply gave me all the reasons in the world to NOT ever consider him as a candidate, it went something like this: "Um, uh, well...um, uh....". Whether we like it or not, any future president of the US will have to have minimal knowledge about the world we live in, because an american-centric attitude/knowledge won't work anymore. Ignorance will be our worst enemy if we don't elect leaders who know what's going on in the world and aren't out of touch. Bush got over this because he had some of the naton's foremost foreign policy experts in his administration: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Powell, among many others.
Except you're forgetting that the only international experience that Bill Clinton had when he came to office was that he once ate an International House of Pancakes.
maybe he stayed at a holiday inn select because he didn't do to bad at it In fact . .. . I think Bush Sr is the only Pres with previous internation experience before coming into office. . .. in the last 20 plus years Reagan, Bush Jr, Clinton . .. Carter? Rocket River
True as far as his 'working experience' is concerned, but Clinton had always been interested in international affairs way before he became president. You can learn a lot about the world through reading about it, you know?
Carter and Clinton were obviously well versed in foreign affairs before they took office. Tiger makes a great point. It's a shame that Bush doesn't like to read. Now, what they did with that knowledge is something else altogether. Nice thread, basso. I'll jump in later, after seeing Forty Year Old Virgin with my lady for the second time, at her suggestion. Great date flick... things will be exciting late tonight at Android Central. Hayes is mad at me... I need to have a talk with the Street Man. No fair! I can't retaliate in kind, because my signature is sacred, and I already type this damn thing at the end of every post. (argh!) v v v v v Keep D&D Civil!!
I hope this is the case. People might be swayed to vote for a centrist Dem, but I don't believe this country is going to elect a bunch of far left liberals. If the Democratic Party starts swinging further away from center, then they might as well not even put candidates on the ballot.
As far as the culture itself is concerned, there is an ongoing political and cultural 'backlash' from conservative Christians, or the 'heartland' as they're often refered to, against 'secular' America. However, at the end, I do see a Republican party that's embracing socialism (or some aspects of it) as far as economics are concerned, and that's evident when you observe a supposedly 'conservative' president that is anything but when you examine his actions in office (a neo-liberal/neo-conservative foreign policy, massive entitlement spending, massive government that has grown bigger than any other time in recent history, spending that's out of control, etc.). Basically, if Bush is a conservative, then FDR wasn't a liberal. IMO, Americans will demand more and more socialist policies in the future that will provide a 'safet net' for working/middle-class Americans, and that will be something embraced by not just the Democrats but also the Republicans, that's a direction I see this country moving in (we already have a considerable amount of socialist policies in place, but not nearly as much as in Europe and Canada, so we still have ways to go to catch up to them).
Haven't the last 5+ years proved that if there is one thing that works, resonates with the public, its repetitively saying absolutely nothing meaningful?
I see America becoming more along what they are doing now. I do not see the backlash . .not really. . . I see alot of grumble. . . i doubt i see much action Rocket River
No John Edwards didn't have concrete plans. I watched his speeches a lot. He didn't even have many variations to his "two America" theme, which sounds nice the first few times you hear it. But it just grew old after that ...
LOL. If basso ever had anything nice to say about a Democrat that wasn't a back handed insult, or ever had anything negative to say about a Republican that wasn't overloaded with qualifiers, I think I'd have to believe that the four horsemen of the apocalypse were on the way. Obviously he's not the only person biased one way or the other, but I think I could've predicted basso's preface just based on the article. I am suprised, however, that you didn't throw in the requisite jab against the New York Times writer who wrote the story.
The writer, David Brooks, only joined NYT not long ago. He has been a senior editor at neocon's flagship publication, the Weekly Standard, since its inception in 1995. I'd be surprised if basso threw a jab at this guy.
I dunno - I thought it was a pretty fair article, and pretty fair commentary from basso. Kerry does represent the "angry left", which is a huge source of Democratic funding. Edwards, while lacking in substance in the last election, represents more of the Clintonian message of hope and helping the needy, etc. What make Clinton unique was that he mixed that message with a lot of intellect - I'm not sure Edwards has that ability. If he does, though, especially after Katrina and how the suffering of the poor has really taken center stage - he has a message that might just resonate within good chunks of the non-hating Democratic party.
I was hoping this was a Mayor White Vs. Mayor Nagin thread. A tale of two democrats, one of them an excellent leader and one a worthless one.
