HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Fight, Fight, FightWatching John Edwards' closing argument.

By John DickersonPosted Thursday, Dec. 20, 2007, at 5:50 PM ET

John Edwards Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne sang a set of four songs on their two-day New Hampshire tour with John Edwards this week. My favorite was John Prine's "Angel From Montgomery," the lonesome tale of a woman trapped in an empty marriage. As a teenager, when I first heard the song and learned to play it (it's just four chords), I didn't stop to think about what the words meant, but the song worked anyway because the music and the melody are so lovely.

RSS

I've had the reverse experience listening to John Edwards make his final pitch to voters before Election Day. I get the lyrics loud and clear, but I have trouble hearing the music. What seemed missing were the persuasive passages that draw in people who don't already agree with you.

Edwards has offered a constant pitch this campaign, unlike Hillary Clinton, who seems to change her message every few days—she's inevitable, she's human, she's a woman, she's experienced, she's a workhorse. Edwards is going to fight like hell to punish, diminish, and shred the corporations who are responsible for, well, everything that's wrong with the country. "Corporate power and corporate greed have overtaken this democracy," he says. "It's that simple. And we have to take it back. This is not abstract. It goes through everything we need to do in America."

The pitch works in the town halls. His audiences applaud a lot. Other candidates are making a similar pitch, too, so it's clear there's a sizeable constituency in the Democratic Party that loves this populist message. In Manchester on Wednesday, Barack Obama did his best John Edwards imitation: "I am running to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda are over. They will not run the White House and they will not drown out the American people's voices in the United States of America."

Obama argues that he has a longer record of going after the special interests than John Edwards, but after listening to the two of them, Obama's sounded like a watered-down version. If you want the candidate who is going to pound the loudest on the CEO's frosted glass door, John Edwards makes a compelling case that he is that man.

The case Edwards doesn't make is that such measures are necessary. He simply asserts that they are. Edwards doesn't address those in the audience who might say to his corporate bashing: "But isn't it more complex than that?" As Jonathan Alter points out in one example, the drug companies Edwards portrays as the root of so much evil are helping his wife with her cancer. You can believe that corporations do bad things but that they should be regulated, not eviscerated.

Edwards' view is that people don't need convincing. First, he's in the home stretch, and tactically that means pounding home one clear message to rally your base. Second, and more important, say his aides, voters already agree with Edwards' diagnosis about corporate America and they get new evidence every day, like the recent energy bill. It is the defining issue of this race, the way the war was in 2004, so Edwards doesn't have to belabor the point. As proof that voters are already in a populist mood, Edwards aides point to the extraordinary number of people who think the country is on the wrong track. That may prove that a lot of people are unhappy, but it doesn't prove that they've settled on Edwards' sweeping approach. Nor does it prove that people who are already uneasy are anxious to embrace dramatic changes that will, even if successful, create more uncertainty.

Edwards' pitch is that he'll fight the hardest against the oil companies, drug companies, and agribusinesses. At the top of his speech, he tells a story about coming home at age 4 or 5 after having lost a fight. "Don't you ever start a fight," his father tells his bruised and bloodied son, "but don't you ever walk away from a fight, either." But was that really such good advice? There are plenty of fights worth walking away from.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at . Follow him on Twitter.

Photograph of John Edwards by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

The question is ... who do we crack down on? The ones who sell what they shouldn't or the ones who buy it?

The Democrats have, for quite some time, dubbed the whores 'sex workers' and suggested that they were simply victims of society, forced by desperation into an unsavory business, and that cracking down on the rich johns was the way to end the trade in bodies.

That's exactly what John Edwards is saying ... crack down on the corporations and lobbyists who buy the politicians, not the corrupt and venal elected officials, mostly ex-lawyers (and thus used to selling themselves to any cause an an hourly rate) who, scandal after scandal, have shown themselves to be whores.

But who should we really be locking up? Certainly outright bribery should be illegal - even offering a bribe is not legal already - but when we crack down, it will be easier to clean out the whorehouse of congress than to shut down all the corporations, national and international, who currently line the pockets of the Clintons, etc.

--BenK

(To reply, click here.)

(12/25)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES