I want John Edwards to take our case to the American people

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:00:37 AM CST

In December 2003, as John Edwards yard signs were sprouting like weeds around Des Moines, I knew Edwards was coming on strong when I spoke to a friend who had described himself and his wife as firm Howard Dean supporters in the spring. Not only were he and his wife now backing Edwards, he had signed up to be a precinct captain.

I was surprised, because he had indicated that the war was his number one issue, and I wanted to know why he was willing to overlook Edwards' vote on the AUMF.

I can't remember his exact words, but they went something like this: I want Edwards to make the case against George Bush with the American people as the jury.

In other diaries, I have explained how I came to support Edwards for president, and have written about various policies he is proposing.

Today I want to focus on Edwards' skills as an advocate. I think he's the best in our field to make the case for Democrats and for the progressive change we need.

We all know that Edwards was a successful attorney, but let's take a trip down memory lane to see just how good this guy was in front of juries.

I recommend this article, which appeared in the Washington Post in February 2004: Eager to Face Any Jury--and the Voters. The whole article is worth reading, but here are a few of my favorite passages:

From rural courthouses with Confederate memorials out front to the vast judicial complex in this New South capital, lawyers across North Carolina had the same rule of thumb for going up against their colleague John Edwards: Never let him near a jury.

"The problem was that all the older women wanted to take him home as their son, and all the younger ones wanted to go out with him," rued an attorney for several doctors sued by Edwards on behalf of brain-damaged babies. "You'd think, 'Okay, if the women like him, the men must hate him.' But then the guys just saw him as one of them."

Got that? The women loved Edwards, and the men liked him too.

If you are wondering why Edwards polls better than Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Republican presidential contenders, it's probably because he gives up less ground to the Republicans among men.

Going back to that Washington Post article, several people attest to the fact that defendants were desperate to settle so as not to let Edwards in front of a jury. So much so that other lawyers were able to get better settlements just by threatening to refer their clients to Edwards.

Much has been written about the case of Valerie Lakey, the little girl who was disemboweled after sitting on a defective pool drain. The Lakeys were in Iowa a few days ago to tell their story and support Edwards' campaign. Here is something you may not have read about that case:

Retired Wake County Superior Court judge Robert Farmer, who presided over the Lakey case, recalled that "all the lawyers in Raleigh" came to watch Edwards's closing argument, packing his courtroom to overflowing, much as voters packed Edwards's New Hampshire appearances to take in his "Two Americas" speech. "He argued for an hour and a half," Farmer remembered. "He never used one single piece of paper. He never said, 'Uh.' I watched the jury, all 12 and the alternates. They had their eyes totally focused on him."

Just for fun, I encourage you to read the closing statement Edwards delivered in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial. I was living overseas in 1999 and wasn't following the trial that closely, so thanks to "catchawave" for putting up a diary containing Edwards' remarks.

We all know that the outcome of the impeachment trial was predetermined, so I don't mean to suggest that Edwards influenced the jury's vote in this case. Still, his remarks are a good read and a reminder that this guy is a great advocate.

Being a good attorney is one thing, but all the money in the world won't win an election if the candidate cannot communicate effectively with voters. How well does Edwards connect with people outside a courtroom setting?

I encourage you to look at this post by Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com from April. Blumenthal describes Janet Harris's work in creating "tag clouds" following the Democratic candidates' debate on MSNBC in the spring. Click the link and view the clouds to get a sense of the kind of language used by our presidential candidates.

Here's the most important part:

A few quick observations, with an assist from Janet (who is the president of the media analysis firm, Upstream Analysis):

   * Notice the more frequent use of wonkier language by Chris Dodd, particularly the use of "administration," "multinational," "stateless," etc.

   * Now contrast that to John Edwards, whose answers tend to use everyday language and deliver a message loud and clear message: "America," "believe," "united."

The research on persuasion and framing tells us that we need to connect to people at the level of values before we can expect to get them on our side of an issue.

John Edwards is able to connect with people at this level. I can't resist posting one last quote from that 2004 Washington post article:

"You never walked away and said, 'That was the most brilliant speech I ever heard.' It was just something everyone could understand," said one defense attorney.

But that was a long time ago--how well is Edwards communicating with voters now?

As I've written before, while other Democratic presidential candidates tout their policy ideas and leadership skills, Edwards is taking it a step further on the stump. He tells audiences that we need to do more than elect a new president. We need to take on the whole system that allows corporate lobbyists to get their way on too many matters of national importance.

CBS reporter Chip Reid, who is "embedded" with the Edwards campaign, jokes that Edwards isn't screwing up enough on the campaign trail:

DISCIPLINE, DISCIPLINE, DISCIPLINE - I'm a bit unhappy with John Edwards. I've been covering his campaign for 10 days and he hasn't made a lot of news. Let's face it - a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes. The campaign trail is one long minefield, covered with Iowa cow pies, and when they step in one - we leap.

I've done very little leaping - and I blame Edwards. While other candidates misspeak, over-speak, and double-speak, Edwards (at least in these 10 days) has made so few mistakes that I end up being transported -- newsless -- from town to town like a sack of Iowa corn.

It's not just that Edwards isn't making gaffes, Reid adds:

He has a remarkable ability to stay on message. Not just in "the speech," but even in Q and A. Nothing throws him off. He turns nearly every question into another opportunity to repeat his central theme. Global warming? We need to fight big oil. Health care? Fight the big drug and insurance companies. Iowa farmers' problems? Blame those monster farm conglomerates. And the Iowa populists eat it up. We'll see how well it works in other states.

He's even disciplined in his daily routine. While most reporters use the campaign trail as an excuse to over-eat and abandon their exercise routines, Edwards squeezes in a run EVERY DAY, rain, sleet, or shine.

Come on John - relax. Step in an Iowa cow pie and let me do my job.

I have seen Edwards answer questions several times this year. Whatever the issue, whether the questioner is friendly or hostile, Edwards is able to relate his answer to the larger themes of his campaign.

If you've watched the presidential debates, you may have noticed the same pattern. In September, I wrote a diary highlighting some of Edwards' answers at the AARP forum in Davenport, Iowa. If you click the link, you will find excerpts from the debate transcript showing how Edwards, asked a narrowly-focused question, made his answer about the big picture.

When the moderator Judy Woodruff asked him whether states should be allowed to go first in implementing health-care reforms, Edwards also mentioned "the drug companies, the insurance companies, and their lobbyists" who stand in the way of the national health care reform we need.

When Woodruff asked whether he would raise tax rates on the very wealthy above 39 percent, Edwards didn't spend his whole answer on the minutiae of his tax reform plan. Instead, he got to the bigger issue: wealth income is currently taxed at a much lower rate than work income, which means we are not treating work "with the dignity it's entitled to" in this country.

There is more to "staying on message" than memorizing a stump speech or mindlessly repeating a few talking points.

A strong campaigner is not only conversant with the issues (as are all of our Democratic candidates) but is also able to think on his or her feet, so that no matter what question is asked, the answer relates to the bigger themes and values the candidate is emphasizing.

Daily Kos user Universal, a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, recognized Edwards' talents during the final Democratic presidential debate earlier this month:

John Edwards' fantastic performance in today's final Iowa debate was one of the better showings I can remember for any candidate of either party since at least Bill Clinton in '92 or '96.

Edwards was sharp, smooth, witty, and 100% on message.

And it was a great, stirring message.  A populist message, replete with appeals to helping the poor and the downtrodden, about moral responsibilities.

CBS reporter Reid may be annoyed by Edwards' ability to stay on message, but what do Iowa Democrats think? Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepsen reported last Sunday that

the guy who sells political buttons at all these campaign rallies tells me he sees the most enthusiastic crowds for John Edwards.

If you say that a populist message is just red meat for diehard Democrats, I say you are wrong. But don't take my word for it--look how Mike Huckabee is using very similar rhetoric in his campaign appearances.

The difference is that Huckabee's answer to the grossly unfair economic playing field is the goofy "fair tax," a "crackpot scheme from beginning to end". In contrast, the Edwards tax reform and simplification plan would actually benefit the middle class by taxing work and wealth equitably.

Edwards has both a strong message and the skills to communicate that message to the general electorate.