Edwards Making Closing Argument in Iowa--And Why The Media Doesn't Get It
John Edwards is making his closing argument with the voters of Iowa--and the media elites are having a hard time trying to understand why he is now drawing increasingly larger crowds. That comes through glaringly in today's New York Times piece by the apparently perplexed Adam Nagourney.
Senator Edwards is connecting with the voters like his primary opposition cannot. His message is clear, the future of this nation is at stake, and the same cloth taken from an old pair of paints rewards you with nothing more than another old pair of pants, though even more worse for the wearer.
While his opponents may describe themselves as agents of change their argument is thin, while Edwards call is unique and virile in its intensity.
This IS an edited and abridged version of Mr Tasini's Post on the NYT article. http://www.workinglife.org/...
In the Times piece, we learn that:
Mr. Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, almost won the Iowa caucuses in 2004 by introducing, in the final weeks of the contest, a closing argument that drew huge crowds and, polls suggest, rallied supporters to his corner right up until the night of the vote. In 2008 Mr. Edwards, a former trial lawyer, is offering yet another closing argument to his jury of voters here. And there is evidence — from the size of his crowds to the decision by an opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, to challenge him more directly in the past few days — that it may be working.
Nagourney appears surprised by this development. He even tries to make it seem as if Edwards' message is in conflict with the "Two Americas" slogan that has been a centerpiece of the campaign since it began in New Orleans last year.
The 2008 campaign IS about the widening gulf between "The Haves" and the "Have-Nots domestically." Elitist media types may in fact be the very last to recognize this "phenomenon," while those who are falling or have fallen, from "The Middle" have certainly.. been the First.
And, to some extent, this has been the media's problem from the outset. Elites like Negourney fail completely to comprehend that there is an absolute connection between what Edwards says about "Two Americas"--that we have a few people who are doing quite well while most people are not.
This same elite media are also failing to recognize that it is those very same people who are doing well and to whom the growing sociological disparities both financial and of economic does not register that the elite media fall in line with.
Furthermore
The poor do not read their opinions or stories, so when John Edwards comes out in person or on TV and they here his appeal to "Rise Up" and to enlist them in "his call for change" it rings true in "their" ears, they listen and increasingly, it is looking as if they will take action in Edwards regard.
When John Edwards says this:
"We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that’s not true is living in a fantasy world," Mr. Edwards said. "How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action."
John Edwards call to "Rise Up" in opposition to the Corporatist Tyranny that has taken hold of this nation at the expense of the people, is being heard and "The Disconnected" are having difficulty understanding "It."
...JRE is exactly talking about the fight by one part of America to take back the country, with another part of the country--the elites, particularly in business--determined to hold on to its power and privilege.
In the article, Nagourney quotes from the Des Moines Register endorsement of Sen. Clinton:
"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination," the editors wrote. "But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
The frame that Edwards' message is "Harsh Anti-Corporate Rhetoric" makes it even more difficult for the elites to understand why Edwards has strong appeal. These folks don't understand what many Americans understand:
We don't need a candidate--or, for that matter, a president--who believes that their job is to get along with business, or that the way to turn things around in America is to have a pleasant conversation with business. This has been the chain around our collective necks for lo these many decades. We need a president who, first and foremost, understands the interests of working people and, then, asks the question: how can business serve those interests?
We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.
We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.
We need a president who understands what it means to support unions.
The media has never gotten this. And so reporters and columnists (with some exceptions) have repeatedly recoiled at Edwards' message. They find it distasteful. They find it "harsh."
***But after all, "They" MUST find such powerful rhetoric "Harsh" because they are in the end, employees of those entities who have been holding the reins of power with political capitulation from the likes of those who would "Work with Big Business to Bring About Change."
John Edwards has it RIGHT, he tells the story and the background and the solution in a way that working people can digest and take to the bank. It looks like that America may have finally found a budding Hero the likes of which we have not seen in more than half a century.
What the elite media can't understand is the truth because, after all, it threatens their own perception of the world and, in many cases, it may threaten their very personal social and political stature.
And, so, "They" stand, dumbfounded, by the growing crowds for Edwards. I don't know if this means that Edwards wins. (For the sake of America, we better hope and pray that he does), I do know however, that he has framed the debate in this primary and is trying to create a conversation in the country that lasts beyond the election. We can all be thankful for that.