Paul Krugman writes in The New York Times:
On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.
Christopher Hayes writes in The Nation:
The fact remains that the Edwards campaign has set the domestic policy agenda for the entire field. He was the first with a bold universal health care plan, the first with an ambitious climate change proposal that called for cap-and-trade, and the leader on reforming predatory lending practices and raising the minimum wage to a level where it regains its lost purchasing power.
Ezra Klein writes in The American Prospect:
Much more so than Obama, it was Edwards who forced a new style of politics, untethered by the fear and timidity of the 90s, adamant that liberalism was an electoral boon and economic justice a popular sentiment. Knowing they had to defend against his challenge, both Hillary and Obama edged closer to his appeal.
It left the Democrats in a much stronger position overall, and forced them to argue for, and commit to, a much broader and more inspiring agenda than we otherwise might have seen.
Kevin Drawbaugh reports for Reuters:
Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same — Democrat John Edwards. One business lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be a ‘disaster’ for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
‘I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from to be blunt,’ said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
Visit John Edward’s website for more information.
8 Comments
Hmmmmmmm….I’m almost, sorta, kinda leaning towards him.
*sigh*
As much as I hate to disagree with you, Brian, because you’re a really sweet guy–I find I must.
Christopher Hayes is incorrect. Hillary Clinton proposed her own comprehensive health care plan for the nation in 1993, a decade before it became “en vogue,” and Edwards et al joined on the bandwagon.
@ Jamie: That is true, but Edwards was the first to propose a plan during this election cycle. And Hillary’s current plan is nowhere near what she was proposing in 93.
Don’t ever worry about disagreeing with me! I like the discussions.
Well, I don’t see that Hillary’s ever really taken health care off of the table. I’d like to think that she’s learned a bit more about it and her new goals are more immediately reachable. Ever-so-lofty plans are fine and dandy, but unenactable unless Americans demand them en masse–and that means more than a Presidential election. I’m thinking Constitutional Convention for that kind of national overhaul.
And Edwards comes off, really, as too angry for me to vote for. I don’t know if it’s misplaced grief because of his wife’s cancer or something else, but I distinctly recall his demeanor last time around not being nearly so spiteful.
@ Jamie: I think the media has tried to portray Edwards as the “angry, white guy“. He isn’t nearly as interesting as a black guy or a woman, and I’m sure the media feels threatened by his stance on big corporations… since they are all owned by them.
I believe Edwards will perform much better in southern primaries, but I might be surprised.
While I do think media portrayal of candidates is a huge factor to always keep in mind, it’s Edwards’ own demeanor that gives me this impression, from watching him speak and debate.
@ Jamie: I can understand that, but where you see anger, I see passion.
You made an important observation, though; perhaps he is a little bitter over his wife’s illness. I would be if I were in his shoes.
Oh, certainly, I’d be a basketcase.