One of the things that's most vexing about John Edwards is the disconnect between his current rhetoric, message and policy prescriptions (which are quite progressive, and excellent) and his six-year record as a US Senator which was neither of those things. In an interview yesterday, Russ Feingold went after Edwards for his record:

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

At a press avail this morning, I asked Edwards what his response was and he said (testily), "I like Russ Feingold." Then he took the next question. Edwards has been pretty forthright about admitting he made bad votes and even, in the case of Iraq, apologizing for them. But I've never heard any persuasive explanation of why he was such a lame senator. Was he listening to the wrong people? Blinded by ambition? Scared of veering too far left in North Carolina? I'd like to hear him or his campaign address this at some point.

Comments (27)

1. Too bad Feingold isn't running.

   A. Was he listening to the wrong people? B. Blinded by ambition? C. Scared of veering too far left in North Carolina?

   B gets my vote.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/18/2008 @ 9:26pm

2. Could METT be Feingold himself???? :)

   Posted by Happy at 01/18/2008 @ 9:38pm

3. Somewhat the same thing as someone near dear, and close to my heart was saying but a short time ago. It's costing Edwards now though. He played it too close voting one way in the senate and another with his rhetoric saving populism for his campaign. Now ... there is a person with regrets, the more so, and if any of the sentiments he now expresses is the least bit true, with an intimate understanding of Karma, too.

   B gets my vote too.

   Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 9:57pm

4. And then there's D - Lacks a spine for not standing up for what he truly believes in.

   Posted by ACook at 01/18/2008 @ 10:11pm

5. METTEYYA will be tickled pink. How many times have we seen that "Edwards v Feingold" voting record? Two dozen? More?

   BTW, ol' Russ isn't "Polly Purebred" himself....though he made a big stink about a threat to filibuster Sam Alito LATER...

   when John Roberts came up for nomination, Feingold basically slapped him on the back and said "Welcome aboard, Mr Chief Justice" with nary a scuffle.

   Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 10:23pm

6. John Edwards---the absolute worst choice for President at this particular time in American history. An economic plan that will push us quickly and deeply into recession and an energy plan that will send us back to the Stone Age. Hope he drops out soon so that he can begin is long slow drop into obscurity.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 01/18/2008 @ 10:25pm

7. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Len%20Mosse

   you're already in the stone age.

   Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 10:45pm

8. I have to agree that Edwards has two personae. One, the idealist/populist in his oratory, and two, the sellout senator on any number of issues. How can we trust him in the White House. Actions and voting record speak louder than words.

   Posted by mozart453 at 01/18/2008 @ 10:47pm

9. Yup. It is troubling and I would like to hear a better explanation of the record (as a whole) and of the subsequent "conversion." But it's not like he's winning right now or anything. So I'm wondering why Feingold felt he had to do this now. Not implying anything untoward--I'm really wondering.

   Posted by gloryoski at 01/18/2008 @ 11:17pm

10. The problem with Feingold's comments is that they apply to all three major candidates. All of them voted against him in the Senate and now while running for president support his positions. John Edwards is now advocating the more progressive positions, closest to Feingold's, and he is singled out and not Clinton and Obama?

    Posted by elemming at 01/18/2008 @ 11:30pm

11. John Edwards---the absolute worst choice for President at this particular time in American history. An economic plan that will push us quickly and deeply into recession and an energy plan that will send us back to the Stone Age.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/18/2008 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person

    The asbsolute worst choice for President is a man who thinks the planet is six thousand years old, supports a flag that has represented hate for millions of citizens and believes that we should change the Constitution to reflect "God's laws". It is impossible to keep a vow to uphold the constitution while at the same time working to shred it to pieces.

    Posted by msights at 01/18/2008 @ 11:35pm

12. I have to agree that Edwards has two personae. One, the idealist/populist in his oratory, and two, the sellout senator on any number of issues. How can we trust him in the White House. Actions and voting record speak louder than words.

    Posted by MOZART453 01/18/2008 @ 10:47pm | ignore this person

    Hello Johannesrolf.

    Mozart,

    Edwards was a senator in North Carolina trying to work from within the system and attempting to move things along incrementally, like Clinton and Obama. Whatever. What profound accomplishments have the others achieved? Clinton talks about her experience and Obama pledges that he will negotiate with everyone at the table, even the big corporate parasites sucking the life from us. The dangerously naive Obama during a speech before NASDAQ investors last September, told the robber baron crowd this:

    "I believe all of you are as open and willing to listen as anyone else in America. I believe you care about this country and the future we are leaving to the next generation. I believe your work to be a part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America. I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal"

    Obama and Clinton also have the luxury of voting in states where the Republicans are more liberal than most Democrats and the electoral backlash is nonexistent. North Carolina was the land of Jesse Helms for Christ sake!

    Look, I really don't know exactly what Edwards' motives were back then, but for the vast majority of his life he's honorably and courageously fought harder for the working class than most of these self righteous senators who accomplish little to nothing. And he renounces his past mistakes rather than denies and prevaricates like Clinton. He grew up poor, unlike the others, even earning his undergraduate degree in the field of Textile Technology before law school. Edwards made his living going after the kind of institutions and individuals that should only exist in the movies. And he beat them when the odds were supposedly insurmountable. He has a more extensive history working to resolve poverty and union issues than any of the other candidates. Edwards is the only person running that has never accepted PAC lobby money, not even the slick talking Obama can claim such boldness. Besides, one can say the same thing about the formerly centrist Al Gore when he was voting as a senator in his southern state. And presently, Edwards has been way out front of the others enunciating clear and specific policies that have essentially mandated that the others pledge substantive policy proposals, which can then be scrutinized. When has a major Democratic candidate spoken with the fire and eloquence of Edwards in recent memory? This guy talks more like Noam Chomsky and less and less like his fellow watered-down Democratic equivocators we're used to seeing.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/19/2008 @ 12:05am

13. All the candidates are making promises and so it up the audience to determine who's appears be most genuine. The big money investors and filthy rich are laying bets on Obama and Clinton. Obama's largest contributor is Goldman Sachs, and eight of his top twenty donors are colossal investment firms just like Sachs. While Edwards' top fund raising ally is a grass roots organization called ACTBlue. Hmm...Obama's feel good talks about change and reform don't seem very persuasive to corporate America. Edwards on the other hand has been openly characterized as the worst choice and most feared candidate by big business.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/19/2008 @ 12:36am

14. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/19/2008 @ 12:10am | ignore this person

    The Republicans have never cast their support for any candidate before the general election?

    Posted by BizarroRio at 01/19/2008 @ 12:37am

15. So Feingold resents the fact that Edwards voted for the PATRIOT act and the AUMF.

    Clinton voted for the PATRIOT act and AUMF. Having missed the vote for the first PA, Constitutional Law Scholar Barack Obama voted for its renewal and has never blinked at voting for funding for the war. Feingold attacks Edwards, and only Edwards for voting for the PATRIOT act and AUMF, five years ago. And your only comment is that Edwards owes you an explanation.

    Posted by haskells at 01/19/2008 @ 12:58am

16. I agree with Oustbush. I wanted Feingold to run, but he didn't, so he should be thankful that Edwards is running on his platform. Edwards has done a lot of anti-poverty work, and pro-union work, real grass roots work, so why question his sincerity because of votes the others cast too? Feingold loses my respect for trashing the most progressive candidate. That leaves him with Ronald Reagan Obama or Hillary will not disavow war vote Clinton.

    Posted by lynninsf at 01/19/2008 @ 02:09am

17. Edwards is honest in his platform. There is no way that he could be cheating because he has spoken clear and loud on what he wants to do if elected. And if he does otherwise, it would be the biggest fiasco in the history of the Presidency. The greatest lie ever that would make the phrase 'compassionate conservative' appear to be simply a bar joke. He does not want to do that.

    He veered to the left since he left the Senate, that's very clear. Why? Only electoral motives, or while he toured 'the other America' - as he calls it - he found his vocation and soul? I accept both hypotheses but favor much more the second because of what I said in the 1st paragraph.

    I think that Edwards wants to be President because he dreams to win the 'trial of his life' authentically advocating for the weak and poor of this country. And that is superb. His problem is that he is a great lawyer, but has never appeared as a leader capable of inducing the public to follow him. Why? Simply because of one thing: he speaks too negative. When someone speaks negative, or with severe criticism, he/she is destined to be in the opposition. When someone speaks positive, the people follow. That leader is capable of communicating passion to the public.

    Example: Obama= hope+new future+ union----> followers Edwards=two Americas+greedy corporations ---> people think: 'hey good ideas but isn't this guy just looking this too much just on one side? What about of working in teams?'

    Progressives, like most of us, know that Edward's message is much more specific - and even realistic (the fight will be tough)- than Obama's. On the other side, both guys are progressives but Obama's message 'touches' much more the great public and therefore is in a much more favorable position to be elected.

    Senator Feingold -definitely among the best, if not the best, in the Senate - follows always his convictions and does not understand how one can change that dramatically when he, Feingold, has always kept his straight line. He is directing Edwards to talk about Edwards' errors, to do a conscience exam. And that should be done, needs to be addressed by Edwards at some point. Unfortunately, this would most likely be negative for his campaign.

    I am truly sorry for Edwards because his chance is very, very slim.

    Posted by Frank42 at 01/19/2008 @ 03:03am

18. Even when Chris Hayes critisizes my candidate I like his stuff.

    I echo the call for more on when and why he changed his mind (it could come out of all the time he spends talking his grandma and the mill town).

    you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

    That sounds like a bit of the explanation right there. Edwards was elected when Clinton looked like the only thing the party had going for it. It is not implausible to think that a quasi-populist Edwards (which is all he is now by the way. he looks like a populist just because current policy is so favorable to the rich) would think, 'if I ever want to get anything done, I am going to have to play ball with the DLC as long as they run the party.' (notice that Feingold has never gotten more than a subcommittee chair, and didn't even get that until just recently. Feingold's legislative record is long on good votes and short on actually passing things, becuase he was excluded from real power for years) That would also explain why he changed his tune during the middle of the '04 race. When he got out and campaigned outside of D.C. (and outside of the South) he finds that there is a resevoir of support for genuinely left-wing policies. So he starts talking about two Americas. He loses. He sees the same shit everyone else does for several years. He comes back with basically the same two Americas message, except now it has a much more combative tone to it. After all he just got done watching another few years of Bush bullshit. That makes me angry too.

    I don't know if that is the explanation. It is the most benign one I can think of. Other explanations are that he was simply being a coward when he was a Senator. Or he was simply playing to his North Carolina base. Or he didn't actually understand the issues (happens sometimes with Senators. Take Joe Biden for instance). All of these are plausible. None speak well of him, but they vary in how poorly they speak of him.

    What is not plausible is that anyone could think that running this far to the left of Hillary Clinton was a recipe for success and so did it out of ambition. He has lost huge in the money primary, and he has lost huge in the 'media attention' primary. And that was predictable. To those who think his plan was to be the only anti-Clinton candidate and so pick up enough support to be competitive I would respond that he could have gotten the anti-Clinton support without moving so far left, and it was clear Obama was getting into this back in 2005. Plenty of time to change your gameplan if all you care about is winning.

    Edwards' campaign doesn't seem as dead as I had thought, so I am back for a bit until he either wins the primary lottery, or his campaign stops kicking and just sinks. Until he sinks I figure I will do what little I can to defend him.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/19/2008 @ 04:18am

19. I think Edwards voting record is pretty easy to understand. Edwards was a 1st time Senator from a red state (NC) and was doing what all 1st time Senators do, he was voting very close to what his constituency wanted him to vote. He had to pick & choose which issues he was going to risk his Senate seat when he voted in a much more liberal manner than the voters in NC. In case people forgot Edwards was out front on the Patients Bill of Rights and was catching a lot of bad media in NC for doing so. He actually had quite a few votes where he was denounced in NC.

    Barack Obama, on the other hand, came from a blue state. Any liberal votes he made would not cause him problems back home with the voters who sent him to the Senate. But as Obama has campaigned in this election he has used quite a lot of right-wing rhetoric even going so far as to praise Reagan. I find that far more disturbing than Edwards senate record and so should you.

    And finally, what about Hillary? She is from a very blue state so why doesn't her voting record reflect that?

    If you want to compare voting records, that's fine, but lets be honest about it and compare all the factors not just the one that we can twist to make Edwards look bad.

    Posted by pmorlan at 01/19/2008 @ 08:35am

20. I forgot to mention Feingold in my previous comment. I'm very curious why Feingold came out right before the Nevada Caucuses to go after Edwards. We will probably never know but after having watched the way Edwards has been treated by party insiders during this campaign I'm really not surprised to see this. I think for any enterprising writer there is probably a very interesting and disturbing back story to this election. I hope that one day someone will write about it so that all of us can see how entrenched interests control our nominating process.

    Posted by pmorlan at 01/19/2008 @ 08:58am

21. Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/19/2008 @ 12:05am

    Posted by PMORLAN 01/19/2008 @ 08:35am |

    By the theory that "Edwards HAD to support or oppose things like that because he was from a Red State and had to 'stay Right' to keep with the views of those that voted him in"....

    why should you expect him to be a "pure progressive" President?

    You guys forget...he's running in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, and trying to get the base of the Dem Party to vote for him and allow the moderates and conservatives split between Hillary and Obama.

    Therefore, he "moves Left"...but he can't STAY THERE if he gets the nomination, because as nominee this coming fall he's got to win a lot of independents and moderates who have been voting for Bill Clinton and George Bush for the last 16 years (as well as many who have been voting for Bush-41 and Ronald Reagan for the last 28 years).

    So...just by your own hypothesis, Edwards will HAVE to "move Right" again to get those votes...and "stay Right" (or atleast "Middle") to keep them on his side and get re-elected in 2012.

    Posted by Mask at 01/19/2008 @ 09:44am

22. Mask,

    If McCain is the candidate you might be right, if only becuase the press will refuse to cover his flaws. If any of the other republicans is the nominee then Karl Marx could win the election. (not really, but you get the point) You don't have to move right against Huckabee, he has done enough of that. You don't have to move right against Romney, in fact you want to keep true to your primary positions to highlight how he went from moderate republican with experience to Christian Conservative Washington outsider within the space of a year. Guiliani alienates 60% of the electorate just with his foreign policy positions and won't get the Republican base out anyway. Thompson will sleep through most of it.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/19/2008 @ 1:20pm

23. Pmorlan,

    Feingold is not a party insider. He has been on the outside looking in his whole career. I think Feingold is a worried progressive. There is no one that someone like Feingold can feel comfortable with in this election. Edwards used to be a centrist. Obama used to be on the left but is running as a centrist. Clinton was on the right in the Senate and is now running as a centrist. Unless you are willing to waste your support (not your vote, but your support) on Kucinich, what are you going to do?

    That said I think Feingold's comments are ill-advised. There is a chance that Edwards will be a good democrat. There is a chance (much smaller given where his money comes from) that Obama will be a good democrat. There is no chance Clinton will be a good democrat, and she has the biggest chance of losing in November. If you want to support Obama go ahead, but the left should only attack Clinton at this point. Anything else is shortsighted and tends toward the demise of the party (don't expect anyone in the anti-war or anti-globalization or social justice movements to vote for Clinton. Another way to say this is don't expect support from most of the activists) as a people's party.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/19/2008 @ 1:27pm

24. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=dentedpat

    in the primaries repubs have to run hard right, only to steer more center during the election. in the primary dems need not run left, where are they gonna go? the dems will then also run center in the election without losing their left support. again where are they gonna go?

    Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 3:12pm

25. I don't know whether frieheit was in the country for the 2000 election but lots of the far left didn't vote for Gore, and it cost Gore the election. They either went to Nader or did't vote for anyone.

    So while you ignored me and can't see it, that is the answer to your question.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/19/2008 @ 6:09pm

26. Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/19/2008 @ 12:05am

    Posted by PMORLAN 01/19/2008 @ 08:35am |

    By the theory that "Edwards HAD to support or oppose things like that because he was from a Red State and had to 'stay Right' to keep with the views of those that voted him in"....

    why should you expect him to be a "pure progressive" President?

    You guys forget...he's running in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, and trying to get the base of the Dem Party to vote for him and allow the moderates and conservatives split between Hillary and Obama.

    Therefore, he "moves Left"...but he can't STAY THERE if he gets the nomination, because as nominee this coming fall he's got to win a lot of independents and moderates who have been voting for Bill Clinton and George Bush for the last 16 years (as well as many who have been voting for Bush-41 and Ronald Reagan for the last 28 years).

    So...just by your own hypothesis, Edwards will HAVE to "move Right" again to get those votes...and "stay Right" (or atleast "Middle") to keep them on his side and get re-elected in 2012.

    Edwards voted more centrist during his first 4 years in the Senate and once he decided not to run for re-election (representing only red state voters) he moved farther to the left which aligns with is his more personal beliefs. Why you would think he has to move to the right when he is no longer representing just one state? His populist message appeals to a wide group of voters in all parties. The reason the Republicans are attacking Huckabee is not for his message to evangelicals it is because of his populist rhetoric. The Republicans know that populism sells among their voters just as much as it sells among Democratic voters. The thing about Huckabee is that he really doesn't hold populist views and Edwards does. There is no denying that the Republicans fear an Edwards candidacy much more than they fear anyone else.

    Posted by pmorlan at 01/20/2008 @ 11:39am

27. Pmorlan,

    Feingold is not a party insider. He has been on the outside looking in his whole career. I think Feingold is a worried progressive. There is no one that someone like Feingold can feel comfortable with in this election. Edwards used to be a centrist. Obama used to be on the left but is running as a centrist. Clinton was on the right in the Senate and is now running as a centrist. Unless you are willing to waste your support (not your vote, but your support) on Kucinich, what are you going to do?

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/19/2008 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person

    I know that Feingold is not a total insider but he still has to work within the system (just like Edwards did when he was in the Senate). After watching things unfold in this election I'm not so sure that pressure wasn't put on Feingold to make this statement in order to get some consessions on things he has been supporting. Feingold is still a politican and not unwilling to make deals to further what he feels is right. My point is I'd like to know the backstory on this election. You may be right about Feingold, but it is possible that some pressure was applied.

    Posted by pmorlan at 01/20/2008 @ 11:47am