Who won the Democratic Party debate last week?

John Edwards. He was presidential. He came across as optimistic and patriotic. Most important for the first time, he appeared tough enough to compete in a general election, with the kind of tough, eloquent passion he formerly demonstrated when he ran for president in 2004.

As the New York Times observed, Edwards repeatedly challenged Clinton's credentials and credibility. "Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that's corrupt in Washington, D.C.,' Mr. Edwards said. 'She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she'll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's not ending the war; that's the continuation of the war.' He added, 'I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country's history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won't say one thing one time and something different at a different time.'

The Nation's columnist, John Nichols got it right when he said,
"Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. 'If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate.'"

As much as I like Hillary and Barack Obama, John Edwards, was the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.

It's interesting that two days after the debate, the New York Times ran a front page top of the fold photograph of a smiling Hillary Clinton being awarded the endorsement of a major union. Inside, virtually every letter to the editor the Times selected, attacked the male Democratic contenders for "piling on" Hillary at the debate, a completely faux feminist issue. The right wing website Drudge, carried a photo of Hillary portraying her as a victim of a "pile on" by the "boys." Thus the media, left and right, is trying to whip up a feminist backlash that will undermine Edwards in the upcoming Iowa caucuses.

The bottom line is this: Edwards is an articulate, presidential candidate who has committed the sin of being against big corporations, fat-cat lobbyists and for the working people. And the media establishment--both right and left--will do everything it can to bring him down.

Comments (2)

Nora Thomason

I love John Edwards. Thank you for helping me to understand why his campaign hasn't had the media coverage that it deserves - his populist views are certainly infringing on the huge media company sensibilities! As for Hillary, I don't think that victim role will stick. John, this is a great post! Thanks for posting it!

Posted by Nora Thomason | November 5, 2007 2:37 PM

Posted on November 5, 2007 14:37

Jean

Well I have to agree that John really let loose, and if nothing else, Hillary showed she crumbles easily. I am not sure either quality is particularly presidential.

Give me a cool head any day. When a leader can remain calm, he or she can think. Wisdom can not prevail when we are all heated up. Despite the urging some have thrown Obama's way to hit back, heat it up, I admire his "I don't do nasty."

I admire his ability to think calmly on his feet. If the JJ gathering and his speech is any measure, he is ready, more than ready to lead.

Posted by Jean | November 11, 2007 5:51 PM

Posted on November 11, 2007 17:51

Post your own comment

Name:

Email Address:

Remember personal info?

(To create links here or for style, you may wish to use HTML tags in your comments) We want to know what you think. Feel free to share whatever you'd like to:

Menu

Shortcuts

Frequent Contributors