RECENT POSTS
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
What did Johnny Mean?
June 19, 2007 11:46 AM
Former Sen. Johnny Reid Edwards, D-N.C., is raising some eyebrows with remarks he made Sunday in Carroll, Iowa, (LINK) in a meeting with white, elderly rural voters.
Edwards was arguing that he would be a more palatable Democratic presidential nominee with whom congressional candidates in contested swing states can campaign.
"It's not just a question of who you like," Edwards said. "It's not just a question of whose vision you are impressed with. It's also a question of who is most likely to win the general election. It's a pretty simple thing. Who will be a stronger candidate in the general election here in the State of Iowa? Who can go to other parts of the country when we have swing candidates running for the Congress and the Senate? Is the candidate going to have to say, 'Don't come here. Don't come here and campaign with me. I can't win if you campaign with me.'"
At another point, Edwards said, "I think it's just a reality that I can campaign anyplace in America."
At a media appearance, Edwards said (LINK), "I can be competitive in rural America."
The suggestion is clearly that Edwards is more attractive to swing and or rural voters than are either Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., or Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- a claim I'm not certain is borne out by facts in Obama's case. But some are interpreting it to mean that Edwards is saying as a white male Southerner he is more attractive to swing voters than either a woman or an African-American.
I'm not certain that's what Edwards meant. What do you think?
-- jpt
June 19, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (7)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Are you sure you want to call TN Gore's homestate? He didn't spend most of his life over there. And he barely visited the state between 1993 and 2000. If that's what homestate means what was D.C. or California for Gore? He was certainly more at home over there than in right wing TN in the 90s.
Posted by: grin | Jun 22, 2007 2:08:51 PM
TOM - If I remember correctly, Gore did not do that well in the South; he even lost his home state of TN...and they certainly did not vote for Edwards in '04...granted, no one votes for VP
I think it says more about the interpreters than the candidate
Posted by: phillygirl64 | Jun 19, 2007 6:01:57 PM
TOM...uhhhh...xenophobia may be better than racism or sexism, but it's not exactly a redeeming quality. Just sayin.
ps Hill can summons a southern accent at will y'all
Posted by: cordelia525 | Jun 19, 2007 4:10:55 PM
This is a typical msm attack on Edwards.
Jake obviously knows that Edwards is a southerner and Democratic candidates from the south have won the popular vote ( Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Gore ). No northern Democrat has won the popular vote since JFK.
This is no knock on Hillary or Obama but Edwards should campaign on the fact that he is more electable.
Shame on Jake for trying to imply that it was racial or about gender.
Posted by: TOM | Jun 19, 2007 3:33:21 PM
It is probably true, that a white male would do better in rural states than a female or black candidate, a sad tale of the state of current electoral politics. (But Edwards shouldn't advertise this.) What about Bill Richardson, a Latino candidate, how would he fare?
Posted by: reyonthehill | Jun 19, 2007 1:57:24 PM
I'd probably interpret Sen. Edwards' remarks to mean that he thinks he'd do better with the so-called "NASCAR dads" (Southern and rural males) than the other candidates would. Unfortunately, this assertion wasn't confirmed in the 2004 election, where, it must be noted, he WAS on the ticket with Sen. Kerry and didn't draw a lot of the "NASCAR dads'" votes then. Is Sen. Edwards so desperate that he's now grasping at any issue whatsoever to distinguish himself from the leading Dem campaigners? It seems that the trait Sen. Edwards exhibited in 2004 which appealed to so many--the positive campaigning with no personal attacks--has been left by the wayside along with his dignity and self-respect.
Posted by: chuck | Jun 19, 2007 12:10:48 PM
oh I think his remarks are benign. He's referring to his populist beliefs, not his gender or skin color. I give him and the american people more credit than that. Condi enjoys popularity in middle america, doesn't she? I mean, among conservatives.
Posted by: cordelia525 | Jun 19, 2007 12:08:33 PM
Post a comment
