LEBANON, NH -- At a town hall in a high school here, John Edwards organizers had to set up an overflow room, the event was so packed. During the Q and A, a woman got up and said: "I agree with you completely and I want to support you. But the special interests you talk about never seem to go away. What are the mechanism's you'll use to beat them?"

It was a good question. Edwards answered by talking about the need to fight, not just negotiate or "bring people together" and then segued into a conversation about public financing of elections. He also basically said he'd take his case to the people, get out of Washington and try to build public support as opposed to cutting deals in the Beltway. (Bush tried this when he tried to kill social security. He lost not because it was a bad strategy, but because the policy was wildly unpopular). It crystallized one of my most nagging doubts I have about the Obama phenomenon. It's clear what people are voting for when the vote for John Edwards, with Obama not so much. So if John Edwards is elected president he will have a mandate to take on the monied interests and revive economic democracy. If Barack Obama gets elected he'll have a mandate to be Barack Obama.

Comments (35)

1. Hmmm...but, what about Edwards' advisors cum lobbyists who're affiliated, even reportedly beholden to "the powers that be?"

   Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 6:28pm

2. HAYES: ...if John Edwards is elected president he will have a mandate to take on the monied interests and revive economic democracy.

   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Economic Democracy is a socio-economic model that suggests a transfer of decision-making authority from a small minority of corporate shareholders to the much larger majority of public stakeholders. As monopoly structures progressively restrict labor from access to the universe of natural opportunities[1], the ability of modern society to purchase its own output production tends to diminish.[2] Assuming that full political rights cannot be won without full economic rights,[3] workers manage production democratically to distribute the surplus generated by labor more equitably and efficiently, thus restoring legal and political control to the majority. Minimizing direct influence from any passive ruling class, workplace democracy and socialized investment form transparent cooperative alliances to guide the free market toward economic stability.[4] This economic model tends to promote democratic regionalization as the most viable alternative to the central-planning tendencies of state and corporate imperialism.[5] Supporting reform agendas include democratic coorperatives, social credit, and regionalization of currency and food production.

   Hayes opines Edwards will ?Revive? Economic Democracy? What country is he talking about? No wonder Edwards is fading!

   Economic Democracy is Marxism, if Wiki is close to the mark! Curious how under Economic Democracy, how the workers would distribute DEFICITS they generate? Cut their own wages to match Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Ecuador...out of solidarity?

   Posted by Happy at 01/05/2008 @ 7:01pm

3. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/05/2008 @ 6:32pm

   Bush tried to save Social Security? How do you figure?

   The whole issue came up during a Republican Congress, and his big idea to "save" social security was to gut most of it and funnel contributions into private accounts. Did someone say something about killing the patient?

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/05/2008 @ 7:02pm

4. Posted by HAPPY 01/05/2008 @ 7:01pm

   Economic democracy, in this case, clearly means people having more control over their economic lives. He is not talking about decision making in corporations - which are run by managers and to a smaller degree their majority shareholders.

   I know economic democracy is a bit vague, but you weren't particularly charitable with this comment.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/05/2008 @ 7:08pm

5. "So if John Edwards is elected president he will have a mandate to take on the monied interests and revive economic democracy."

   I don't think there's much reason to consider that. The primary is in 3 days and....

   Rasmussen Reports Saturday, January 05, 2008

   "Barack Obama, fresh from his victory in Iowa, now holds a ten point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race found Obama with 37% of the vote while Clinton earns 27%. John Edwards is the only other candidate in double digits, with 19% support. Bill Richardson is the choice for 8%."

   Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 7:16pm

6. Economic democracy, in this case, clearly means people having more control over their economic lives.----Posted by SRJENKINS 01/05/2008 @ 7:08pm

   Wouldn't that also mean "people having more control over their money than the Government"?

   Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 7:18pm

7. Wouldn't that also mean "people having more control over their money than the Government"?

   Posted by MASK 01/05/2008 @ 7:18pm | ignore this person

   somebody call Mask, Jomamma is using your name to post.

   Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 7:24pm

8. "If Barack Obama gets elected he'll have a mandate to be Barack Obama."

   Three words: cult of personality. Having a bunch of young, not particularly astute or well-informed supporters also helps. These kids are the 9/11 generation. For many of them, George Bush's charismatic "leadership"(for lack of a better word) is all they can remember. Now their trying to elect a messiah of their own. It's only natural.

   Posted by haskells at 01/05/2008 @ 7:25pm

9. Posted by LEWWELGE 01/05/2008 @ 6:28pm

   What lobbyists cum advisors? Specifics, please.

   Posted by haskells at 01/05/2008 @ 7:27pm

10. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/05/2008 @ 7:24pm

    No...somebody call SRJENKINS...MAASCH is using HIS nick.

    "Economic democracy, in this case, clearly means people having more control over their economic lives."

    Isn't "your money" part of your "economic life"? So...how do YOU translate that?

    Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 7:31pm

11. "Three words: cult of personality. Having a bunch of young, not particularly astute or well-informed supporters also helps."----Posted by HASKELLS 01/05/2008 @ 7:25pm

    Uh, oh. Looks like some of the Edwards' people are getting pissy and starting to slam the "youth vote"!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 7:37pm

12. Posted by MASK 01/05/2008 @ 7:18pm

    Can you imagine a situation where government helps create legal structures and economic incentives for democratically controlled voluntary associations, such as buyer cooperatives?

    In such a circumstance, you have both greater control over a part of your economic life (buying something) and not reduce it to simply money - since incentives is just code for tax money.

    Same goes for employment through organizations such as unions, guilds or what have you. I'm sure you can think of other examples.

    Of course, government could stop engaging in miltaristic endeavors and funnel that money back to taxpayers, but I think the parent had a little more in mind that merely that.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/05/2008 @ 8:08pm

13. "Parent" SrJ? Freudian slip?

    And Haskells, I read an insightful piece, probably here at the emminent The Nation blogsight, our forum of choice it appears, which spoke of identified specific male individuals/lobbyists who're advising Edwards who are affiliated with the "military industrial complex" (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc.).

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 8:17pm

14. Posted by MASK 01/05/2008 @ 7:37pm

    I speak only for myself. I'm glad to see younger voters participating in the process. But as this excellent post points out, they're making a rookie mistake if they think they could ever hold accountable someone who promises them nothing.

    And BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the only ones who treat Obama like some kind of messiah are the younger voters. Youth, inexperience, a poor grasp of history, or a simple lack of critical thinking skills are equally liable to make people vote against their own interests.

    Posted by haskells at 01/05/2008 @ 8:23pm

15. Posted by LEWWELGE 01/05/2008 @ 8:17pm

    Gee, that's not very specific. I think it's safe to assume that you're just making s--t up. Luckily the odds are that whoever reads it is a lot brighter than you (if they were any dumber they'd be living on a weekly dose of MiracleGro and water) and will therefore be able to discern the truth.

    Posted by haskells at 01/05/2008 @ 8:29pm

16. Many Iowa precinct captains and caucus leaders who gave on-the-ground reports of their experiences on caucus night said that Obama supporters uniformly didn't know what his policy positions were, while Edwards supporters were the best informed on their candidate's policies. This really scares me, because we've already gone through one "American Idol" presidency where we were sold a complete bill of goods about the man in the flight suit.

    Posted by grayslady at 01/05/2008 @ 8:51pm

17. So if John Edwards is elected president he will have a mandate to take on the monied interests and revive economic democracy. If Barack Obama gets elected he'll have a mandate to be Barack Obama.

    Posted by CHRISTOPHER HAYES at 01/05/2008 @ 6:05pm

    hey that's good. dunno if it's true, but very well crafted.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2008 @ 8:57pm

18. Posted by GRAYSLADY 01/05/2008 @ 8:51pm

    I was also struck by their low estimation of the importance of electability. If nothing else the precarious and scary state of the Supreme Court calls for a high premium on elecability.

    Posted by haskells at 01/05/2008 @ 9:03pm

19. the thing with electability is similar to pathology. the pathologist finds out for certain what was wrong with the patient.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 9:34pm

20. Of course, government could stop engaging in miltaristic endeavors and funnel that money back to taxpayers, but I think the parent had a little more in mind that merely that.-----Posted by SRJENKINS 01/05/2008 @ 8:08pm

    Not sure what the ref to "parent" meant? A slip? Freudian like LEWWELGE said?

    Anyway...any OTHER endeavours you'd like to see cut? Or do we only need to have "more control over our economic lives"...when it's "militarism"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 9:57pm

21. Posted by HASKELLS 01/05/2008 @ 8:23pm

    HASKELLS, when have we ever held accountable anybody who promises EVERYTHING as Edwards does?

    If he gets 30% of ONE thing that he's promised....he, his Administration, and his supporters/spin doctors/whatever...will claim he's been a rousing success and deserving of re-election in 2012. He MIGHT be held to the fire by some of the public, definitely the Repubs...but no President in recent memory has done HALF of what they promised....back to Reagan even.

    Frankly, Obama is playing it smart. Be vague and say you'll work out compromises. Vague helps you keep things general enough that you can't be accused of "failing his major policy proposal"...and it sure as HELL will be compromises and negotiations.

    Edwards is basically "fibbing" if he promises that "he'll broker no compromises" and "won't back down". Even FDR had to give in on SOME things.

    But as I note...don't matter. Rasmussen poll has him down nearly TWENTY POINTS to Obama...and the election is in THREE DAYS. If he HALVED his deficit....he still loses to Obama by ten points.

    Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 10:05pm

22. Posted by HASKELLS 01/05/2008 @ 8:29pm | ignore this person

    I think it safe to say you're being ridiculous. It was my post, here it is again.

    "An interesting take on the advisers of each candidate ...

    "AMY GOODMAN: John Edwards?

    ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Edwards is a little different. The list of his foreign advisers is not as complete, so it's not as clear exactly where they may be coming from, but it's interesting. Last night on TV, one of the top Edwards advisers, "Mudcat" Saunders, was complaining about the fact that there are 35,000 lobbyists in Washington. And it appears, from the Edwards list, that many of the military lobbyists are working on the Edwards foreign policy team, because the names that--the Edwards names that are out there mainly come from the Army and the Air Force and the Navy Material Command. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, etc. One of those listed on the Edwards team is the lobbyist for the big military contractor EADS. So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, if he tries to go after the military lobbyists, he may get a little blowback from his own advisers."

    Full Text [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by V at 01/05/2008 @ 10:23pm

23. Economic democracy, in this case, clearly means....I know economic democracy is a bit vague,....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/05/2008 @ 7:08pm

    LMAO!!!! This is your real Freudian Slip!!

    Hayes tossed out some vague BS economics....which sums up what Edwards is....fits!

    Posted by Happy at 01/05/2008 @ 10:54pm

24. Posted by HAPPY 01/05/2008 @ 7:01pm | ignore this person

    It's all fantasy in any case, are you still in the markets?

    " For the tiny fraction of people who actually pay attention to real events -- those, for instance, who know the difference between Narnia and Kandahar -- the final hours of 2007 leading into the fog-shrouded abyss of 2008 must induce great racking shudders of nausea. Has there ever been a society so exquisitely rigged for implosion? The whole listing, creaking, reeking edifice stands like one of those obsolete Las Vegas pleasure palaces awaiting a mere pulse of electrons to ignite a thousand explosive charges perfectly placed to blow away the structural supports.

    The inertia holding everything together that I described in last year's forecast finally melted away at mid-summer and events began spooling out of control. Specifically, the massive tonnage of debt-backed securities circulating through the financial sector stood revealed for the mostly worthless bales of paper they truly are, and the investment community was left suspended in mid-air, grinning unconvincingly, like Wile E. Coyote thirteen yards beyond the edge of the mesa, with a sputtering grenade in each hand and an anvil tied to his ankles."

    http://tinyurl.com/dotyv

    I wish that whoever is the webdev here would get their act together. It would be nice to be able to post links twice in a row. Oh, and edit your post. I mean really ... ;-)

    Posted by V at 01/05/2008 @ 11:10pm

25. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

    For those of you who still have not heard:

    There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

    It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

    Together for Obama, Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/05/2008 @ 11:11pm

26. This is interesting too, though there don't seem to be that many Clinton people around here much of late ...

    January 4, 2008 Gerald McEntee International President AFSCME 1625 L St. NW Washington, DC 20036

    Dear President McEntee:

    We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.

    Full Text [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by V at 01/05/2008 @ 11:16pm

27. Mask, depends on who you promise not to compromise with. If Edwards were promising not to compromise with Senate and House Republicans, then the promise would be silly unless something really weird happens to the makeup of the Senate in this cycle.

    If he is promising not to make compromises with the big corporations, then while that will be hard it won't be as hard as avoiding compromise with republicans. On any particular issue you can peel away a republican or two from the 'Club for Growth' crowd. He still will face a lot of gridlock in the Senate this way, but he could get some things done. But he is setting himself up for a fall.

    There is a fundamental problem that Edwards faces as a populist running for president. Populism (I am here talking about the late 1800's to early 1900's movement) started as a local movement that only went for political power after many years of developing grassroots organizations, lecture circuits, a group of trusted leaders, etc. Edwards is kind of putting the cart before the horse by running for president in the current climate. With a movement behind him he would be able, after four years of grinding it out, to go to his base and say 'You knew it would be like this, you knew they would fight us every step of the way. You know we need more time than four years.' He could do that with a reasonable chance of being believed because he would have dedicated group of groups, organizers and voters who were educated enough on the issues to know what was coming.

    What I worry about is even if Edwards wins the electoral lottery and gets to the White House, his supporters are going to think that the big fight is over. Even if Edwards gets elected he is only going to be able to count on roughly half the democratic party at any one time. He will be a populist in a sea of big business deal makers.

    He was up and down in the debates tonight, so I don't think this scenario is actually going to happen (he needed to kick ass, specifically Obama's. Instead he looked like he was interveiwing for VP or DNC chair). This problem is why I said, on another thread, that I would prefer to see him spend some years in the political wilderness building up the infrastructure of a populist coalition/movement, rather than accept a spot in an Obama administration (assuming Obama gets elected. and with Clinton's little shrillfest at the beginning of the debates when Edwards and Obama tag-teamed her, I think Obama is looking pretty good.)

    (Just to forestall Mett's 'that is what I have been saying' comment, I should say that if Obama gets elected he will be a big business deal maker in a sea of big business deal makers, which hardly seems better, though people will get along more.)

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/05/2008 @ 11:23pm

28. Your ad hominem attack, calling me stupid, Hask-kiss, makes this more difficult, but, Edwards did specifically deny having any lobbyists working for him, so, although my upthread comment wasn't just "made up sh**," I do withdraw it since I'm without evidence re Edwards. As for you AssKill, ASSUME what you will, but know I'll put my credentials and experience up against anyone's, especially the crassly and verbally violent, like you.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 11:28pm

29. Posted by V 01/05/2008 @ 10:23pm

    Presumably you're not calling Pentagon procurement agents "lobbyists", so you're talking about this guy:

    Rear Adm. David R. Oliver Jr., former principal deputy under secretary for acquisition and technology and now CEO of aerospace and defense company EADS North America, military advisory group

    What's your source for the fact that he's a lobbyist? I couldn't find any.

    Posted by haskells at 01/05/2008 @ 11:33pm

30. It's all fantasy in any case,...;-)

    Posted by V 01/05/2008 @ 11:10pm

    Cyclical recessions are caused by imbalances.....today's version is the excess of capital build-up (global liquidity) that led directly to lax risk assessments. The right response was to go light on financial stocks, which I did....but still have suffered!

    The fallout of 100% financing to credit-impaired borrowers and/or for collateral approaching peak cyclical values is predictable....what was not, was the extent many financial companies allowed or actively gorged themselves to the extent they have. (Disclosure: I remain heavily invested in Energy Stocks, but have done so for 2 decades, not related to the herds!)

    Posted by Happy at 01/05/2008 @ 11:56pm

31. If Edwards were promising not to compromise with Senate and House Republicans, then the promise would be silly unless something really weird happens to the makeup of the Senate in this cycle.----Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/05/2008 @ 11:23pm

    That IS what Edwards is promising. Take the usual charges thrown around HERE....that the Congress (including many Dems) is "in the pocket" of corporations.

    Okay...and who is Edwards promising not to compromise with???

    Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 10:04am

32. Posted by MASK 01/05/2008 @ 9:57pm

    Parent is a common reference to the original poster - particularly in forums that are a little more technological sophisticated than The Nation and have implemented threaded discussions. I was referring to the original article, since you (and many others here) are unfamiliar with the "parent" and "child" concepts common in database nomenclature.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threaded_discussion

    I provided two other examples in my post, so no further comment is necessary.

    Posted by HAPPY 01/05/2008 @ 10:54pm

    You can use a vague term in a particular context to give it specificity, as was done in the original article.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/06/2008 @ 11:39am

33. Posted by MASK

    as much as you like to pretend, impeachment is not dead. see George McGovern in WAPO today. it may not be the most pragmatic political move, but we are a nation of laws more than one of politics.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/06/2008 @ 12:03pm

34. Posted by HASKELLS 01/05/2008 @ 11:33pm

    And you think a CEO, that was once part of Pentagon procurement, isn't picking up the phone and taking is former colleagues out to lunch and suggesting they buy his company's products? What would you call that, if not lobbying? And on what basis do you think a rear admiral gets a job as CEO - if not by virtue of his contacts? I'd call this comment willfully niave.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/06/2008 @ 1:46pm

35. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/06/2008 @ 12:03pm

    not enough votes in the senate to convict.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 9:34pm