In Edwards' Closer Ad, An Emotional Laid Off Worker Does All The Talking
Here's John Edwards' powerful closer ad in Iowa -- the entire spot features the testimonial of Doug Bishop, a worker who was laid off at the Maytag plant. Bishop speaks emotionally about an encounter with Edwards in which the former North Carolina Senator promised his seven-year-old son that he would fight for his dad's job as President. The only thing Edwards says in the ad is the disclaimer at the end:
Comments (41)
Timothy wrote on January 1, 2008 2:01 PM:I like how Edwards is using the 60 second format here instead of 30. There might be some Trippi influence in this ad -- remember "you have the power"?
Populist pandering claptrap.
Grant wrote on January 1, 2008 2:13 PM:There might be some Trippi influence in this ad -- remember "you have the power"?And how did that work out for you? AJ wrote on January 1, 2008 3:10 PM:
Great ad, they just run that ad only for the next 48 hours.
Anonymous wrote on January 1, 2008 3:17 PM:Anon-"Populist pandering claptrap."
It is not "pandering" because it is what Edwards believes. "Claptrap" is just a stupid insult that is not a serious enough word to discuss. So the only word of your brilliant post that is true is "Populist". Let me re-write your post for you. Let's try:
Populist effective ad.
I agree completely.
Anonymous @ 2:09 AM,
When did it vogue for Democrats' to hate, fear and depise flesh and blood humiform bipeds? I know that there are popular Democrats in the field that are attempting to reach the Oval Office by giving reach arounds to corporate entities and people be damned BUT that is the providence of the other major party.
People do count. That is the defination of our form of government.
john mccutchen wrote on January 1, 2008 4:12 PM:All the News thats Unfit for TPMElectHillaryCentral to Print
Ben Smith, the Politico.comDan wrote on January 1, 2008 4:14 PM:
What Foreign Policy Expertise
Hillary doesn't know that Musharaff is President of Pakistan http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_errs_on_Pakistan_.html
I don't think there's been anything on the blog on Ralph Nader endorsing Edwards.
Kucinich for prez wrote on January 1, 2008 4:24 PM:Good ad. He's my second choice. My first choice is not allowed on TPM.
Coonsey wrote on January 1, 2008 4:38 PM:I just saw Edwards being interviewed by Wolf on CNN. Wolf asked what Edwards would do when he first takes office.
He said, he'd get the military together and make plans to get combat troops out in a year and he'd get Congress to work on Univ Health Care.
Wolf then asked, what about your Corporate fight? What would you do to solve those problems?
Edwards, changed the subject. He GAVE NO SOLUTIONS to stopping Corporate Greed....HIS big campaign issue?
Paul wrote on January 1, 2008 4:46 PM:Edwards has an effective schtick - it would be more convincing if he had these positions all along. And how exactly is he going to fight the corporations? No clue, of course - other than to say they won't have a seat at the table - yeah, right! He's run away from his record in Congress - essentially saying listen to what I say, pay no attention to what i did - it was all wrong.
He's got no chance - if you don't want Clinton, better vote for Obama.
stlounick wrote on January 1, 2008 5:00 PM:If you like puppies and sweet valentine cards, I suppose this ad brings a tear to your eye. Being from the South, I recognize the saccharine sweetness of the "southern" feel. Does this work everywhere? Heck, it doesn't even work for me!
I'm hard edged and more practical and want a hard-eyed cool intellectual who wants to fix problems instead of bringing tears to the eye.
Vote Obama.
colonpowwow wrote on January 1, 2008 5:26 PM:Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 1, 2008 3:41 PM:
"When did it vogue for Democrats' to hate, fear and depise flesh and blood humiform bipeds? I know that there are popular Democrats in the field that are attempting to reach the Oval Office by giving reach arounds to corporate entities and people be damned"
I'm guessing you mean reach arounds like Edwards's voting against the Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act where he joined with every Republican senator in voting against the amendment which would have exempted "flesh and blood humiform bipeds" who went belly up because of medical bills (like, say, their spouse gets an incurable cancer and they run up $50,000 medical debts in a few weeks).
He opposed every liberal Democrat on this vote (including Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold, Wellstone, and Clinton) in siding with the Charlotte-based financial institutions against the concerns of poor and middle class real people.
Populist my beast of burden! We know which America this guy lives in - and how! 28,000 square foot gated estates, $400 haircuts, SUVs littered on his property's parking lots, locked metal boxes packed with Fortress Investment stock.
What has he personally done in his own life since 2004 to inspire such confidence in his newfound crusade for the common man?
Kucinich for prez wrote on January 1, 2008 5:54 PM:So, colonpowow, you'll be voting for Kucinich?
eorse wrote on January 1, 2008 6:10 PM:Josh, why is TPM not covering Hillary's false comment on Pakistan? It is known that CNN/NYT/NPR have endorsed Clinton. What about TPM?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/blogtalk-debates-and-elections/
Support Obama
eorse wrote on January 1, 2008 6:11 PM:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/blogtalk-debates-and-elections/
Hillary is misleading. Where is her supposed experience? What is TPM response?
Anonymous wrote on January 1, 2008 7:38 PM:I'm guessing you mean reach arounds like Edwards's voting against the Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act where he joined with every Republican senator in voting against the amendment which would have exempted "flesh and blood humiform bipeds" who went belly up because of medical bills (like, say, their spouse gets an incurable cancer and they run up $50,000 medical debts in a few weeks).
Great that Hillary made the vote for the amendment. Shame she missed the vote for the Act itself. (Obama voted against it, however.)
phil james wrote on January 1, 2008 7:54 PM:I challenge anyone on this blog to tell me what it is that Hillary or Barack are going to do to deal with the problems of jobs going overseas, of stagnant wages and layoffs, of the staggering discrepancy between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. Between them not only do tthey not offer any propoosals, they don't even bother to state that any of these is a problem.
colonpowwow wrote on January 1, 2008 7:54 PM:Anonymous at 7:38:
So, Barack Obama voted against the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act passed in 2001?
Ahem, it passed the Senate in 2001 and Obama voted against it you say?
LOL
colonpowwow wrote on January 1, 2008 8:01 PM:phil james:
And I challenge you to go to their election websites and look it up yourself!
Sheesh. Like it would matter if any Obama or Clinton supporter told you anything. Don't you know Hillary's a liar in the pocket of corporations and Obama and his followers are locked in some kind of messianic thing?
I'm 100% sure these issues, or something pertinent to them, are addressed by both campaigns - if you're really interested - which I'm also 100% sure you're not.
colonpowwow wrote on January 1, 2008 8:08 PM:Kucinich for prez wrote on January 1, 2008 5:54 PM:
"So, colonpowow, you'll be voting for Kucinich?"
Not this time, but I've voted for him a couple of times before. I'm supporting Hillary Clinton this year, but if she's locked up the nomination by the time our primary comes around (Indiana), I'm not sure I wouldn't pull the lever for him again and not tell anyone . . .
. . . except maybe my spouse, who is DEFINITELY voting for Kucinich in the primary. And, lke me, for whichever fine Democrat from this outstanding field gets the nomination in the general.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 1, 2008 8:13 PM:For those of us that don't getting warm and runny feelings in our pants when the 'rockstar' of Democratic Party declares that human rights for actual humans is not worth showing up on on the Senate floor for and Her Royale Crownship looking forward to perpetual warfare in Iraq . . . Edwards makes an acceptable choice.
Sidenote conversation: It was not lost on most folk who were awake during the last election cycle that the corporate media assassinated Dean with sound bites within 72 hours of him stating that he was going to roll-back and enforce corporate ownership of media rules . . . Edwards stating that he is considering to enforce the Sherman Anti-trust Acts that Ronald Reagan suppended in the 80's would be political suicide.
You folk are not stupid . . . klinging to rhetorical arguements crafted on right-wing radio makes you appear so. Please consider joining and supporting the return of America to being a representational democracy.
Edwards' words may just be words . . . But so is our Constituation.
Abe wrote on January 1, 2008 8:18 PM:colonpoww wrote: Sheesh. Like it would matter if any Obama or Clinton supporter told you anything. Don't you know Hillary's a liar in the pocket of corporations and Obama and his followers are locked in some kind of messianic thing?
I'm 100% sure these issues, or something pertinent to them, are addressed by both campaigns - if you're really interested -which I'm also 100% sure you're not.
OH MY GOD. I been waiting months for a Clinton supporter to admit that, no, Obama isn't an empty suit and has actually passed more substantive legislation than his rivals, and yes, we'd all know about his and Hillary's and Edward's uniquely substantive plans if we weren't such lazy tards who blab off without visiting each candidate's websites.
If you were even implying half of that, sir, you have earned my respect.
DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 8:22 PM:This seems like as good a place as any to note Kucinich has urged his supporters to make Obama their second choice in Iowa. That of course is a switch from 2004, where Kucinich and Edwards had a deal to make each other their second choice suggestions. Anyway, see here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080101/cm_thenation/45264482
Kucinich for prez wrote on January 1, 2008 8:34 PM:Did Obama return the favor?
kjoe wrote on January 1, 2008 8:45 PM:Let's not be so hard on tpm for ignoring Hillary's idiocy regarding Pakistan because,........uh.....I.............am sure..............they....uh...have a good reason.
DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 8:45 PM:Kucinich for prez,
There was nothing about a deal in the article, and I wonder if it would make much sense--Obama has openly been asking for the supporters of everyone else to make him their second choice, and that task would be harder if he chose Kucinich as his one and only second choice suggestion.
Of course, with an ordinary politician, one would wonder why Kucinich would make such an announcement without getting some in return. But with Kucinich, that wouldn't really surprise me at all.
Anyway, we may find out more.
colonpowwow wrote on January 1, 2008 9:31 PM:kjoe wrote on January 1, 2008 8:45 PM:
"Let's not be so hard on tpm for ignoring Hillary's idiocy regarding Pakistan because,........uh.....I.............am sure..............they....uh...have a good reason."
Her spokesman said she was referring to the military dictato . . . uh . . . I mean the Pakistani President's party. Also, if you read the transcripts, she could have been talking about him holding presidential elections at any unspecified time in the future.
Tempest in a teapot. Again, Obama once referred to the President of Canada. Did this gain any traction? Of course not, nor should it have.
Next.
Tom wrote on January 1, 2008 9:36 PM:Amazing stuff.
Edwards is a real human being, unlike the other fundraising machines he's competing against.
Obama wants to talk about results? Well, look at this worker. Edwards helped him and his son. Who has Obama ever helped?
Abe:
Most Clinton supporters I've seen on here have nothing but respect for Senator Obama. We just think he needs a little more time in the Senate for seasoning.
That said, and this also goes for most Clinton supporters here, if Barack Obama (or any of the other fine Democrats running this time), wins the nomination, we'll be pleased and proud to work and vote for him in the GE.
Heck, I'd even support (ugh) Edwards if he manages to fool enough people that he's some kind of populist and takes the nomination.
Obama in 2016!
DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 9:55 PM:Tom,
If you are actually interested in the answer to your question, I suggest you start with Obama's wikipedia page and follow the links to the relevant articles.
Dan wrote on January 1, 2008 10:16 PM:We just got our fourth Iowa poll of the day from Strategic Vision and it has Romney up for the first time in week and Edwards surging past Clinton.
SDthepoliticalpost wrote on January 1, 2008 10:24 PM:Does anyone see this as pandering in the extreme? Edwards got down on his knee and said "I'm gonna fight for yer daddy".
Does this remind anyone of Edwards' private story to Kerry about laying on his son's grave? Which, as it turned out, was not a private story at all and which caused Sen. Kerry pause as to whether the Edwards choice was worth a second guess.
The Al Gore solution of indulgences for carbon footprints will never help the our situation. It only continues the liberal elites' skirting of the "Mount Laurel" neighborhood responsiblities and re-distributes the burden on other poor families who can't opt out.
No chits for SUVs, no fireplace at Christmas for you, give up and sacrifice. Unless, of course, you have a "Golden Card".
DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 10:43 PM:
I might note the latest Strategic Vision results are consistent with the tracking data in the DMR poll and the trend in the ARG polls (Clinton going down, and Obama going up, as we get farther away from Christmas).
Again, though, I personally think all that is more supportive of Blumenthal's holiday effect hypothesis than proof a real trend.
dajafi wrote on January 1, 2008 11:24 PM:The problem with Edwards's populism is that it's difficult to describe, if not operationalize.
If I'd been him and asked that question about how I would "take the fight to the corporations," my answer might have included the following:
--make the NLRB and OSHA the instruments of workplace justice they was meant to be, rather than the strongholds of anti-union mischief and corporate enabling they've been perverted into under Bush
--empower the regulatory arms of the executive, most prominently including the FDA, SEC and FCC, with the message that "there's a new sheriff in town" and that the days of consequence-free corporate law-breaking are over
--submit federal budgets to the Congress that do less to subsidize oil companies, agribusiness and multinationals and more to support the economic stability and upward mobility of the American worker
Now, all these things sound freakin' awesome to me--but I'm a labor-market policy geek. MSM imbeciles like Wolf Blitzer might well not know what the NLRB does, or what OSHA stands for. The Beltway Kool Kidz would pooh-pooh these (relatively modest and mainstream) tactics, and the Club for Greed asshats on the right--and probably the corporate money-addicted Clinton campaign too--would start screeching about how this irresponsible Bolshevik was going to mandate that Christians stand in line for toilet paper.
That said, I wish Edwards--whom I do believe is sincere on this stuff--would try to put at least a little meat to the bone here.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 12:38 AM:colonpowwow wrote on January 1, 2008 9:31 PM: Next.
Not so fast. Ben Smith---no fan of Obama---printed out what is always the problem when Hillary gets something wrong---she did not really say what she really said:
A spokesman for Clinton, Howard Wolfson, said Clinton was referring to Musharraf's party, not the president himself.
But Clinton's words appear unambiguously to describe Musharraf himself as a candidate.
"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer (.pdf) Dec. 28.
"He could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election," she told ABC's George Stephanopolous December 30.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 9:20 AM:Colonpowwow, I agree with you that clinton II's slip is a tempest in a teapot. Why then is demac twisting and manipulating every alleged slip of the tounge by obama into him being allegedly a serial liar? The slips demac has been pointing at are far less than this slip. They all make slips, but does a slip make someone a serial liar? I don't think so.
colonpowwow wrote on January 2, 2008 11:33 AM:Anonymous at 12:38:
Okay - if it makes you feel better, Hillary said something stupid that may have even indicated she didn't know what was coming up in the Pakistani election. Was it a slip of the tongue? a general reference to the presidential election at some future time? incompetence? a complete misunderstanding re the upcoming election there?
No way to really know. Again, not any traction to be found here I don't think. Laugh at her if you must (I laughed at Obama's "President of Canada" remark), and let's get serious.
Wowsas wrote on January 2, 2008 3:35 PM:For the Obama fans here claiming that Obama has a huge record of getting substantive legislation passed, what are you talking about?
Illinois state legislature experience is just dandy, but 1) the issues focused on there are completely different from the issues focused on by a US Senator, let alone the President of the USA; and 2) Obama's record in the Senate has been mostly incomplete, and to the extent we can evince any trends, there is definitely a pattern of voting much more conservative than his biography would imply.
If you want to tear apart Edwards's record, fair enough, but you really ought to be comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Edwards was representing NC at the same time as Jesse Helms, while Obama has been representing Illinois at the same time as Dick Durbin. Judging from those comparisons, I'd say that Edwards was voting a bit left of what NC voters wanted, and that Obama is voting a bit right of what IL voters want.
But most importantly, since running this campaign for President (which has pretty much been the entirety of Obama's Senate career), Obama and Edwards have had vastly different rhetoric and policy proposals. And if you are going to sit there and call Obama a "progressive", without any evidence of this other than his biography, then I think you're being naive or disingenuous.
After all, Christopher Hitchens was also once an ardent Leftist. While our pasts are useful to some extent in judging what types of persons we are, they are not dispositive. And nothing I have seen from Obama SINCE HE HAS BECOME A U.S. SENATOR has made me believe that he's a progressive. If there had been some indication, I'd be thrilled to support Obama wholeheartedly.
nogo war wrote on January 2, 2008 4:54 PM:Just asking for those of you trashing Edwards as a hypocrite (and yes I know most of them are Republican trolls).
From Obama supporters I hear, and rightly so his grassroots efforts in Chicago.
Can you name something HE established to address poverty that still exists?
You Clinton supporters, can you name something she established while First Lady or even as Senator(outside of her votes)to address poverty?
Well before announcing in NOLA before his Poverty tour Edwards established this.
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html
Perhaps it is a waste of time talking about poverty. Perhaps it is a waste of time talking about the Corporate structure that not only maintains poverty but in fact is increasing it.
Two candidates are going to lose. To what will they commit to?
If Edwards loses I know he will continue to give a voice to those has been stifled. If your candidate loses to what will they commit themselves to?
nogo war,
I'd suggest Obama's successful sponsorship of Illinois' Earned Income Tax Credit, including passage of a bill to make it refundable. Here is an article on how those sorts of programs help lift families out of poverty:
