Via Ezra Klein, a new Time article has John Edwards actually saying the sort of thing I've been thinking for quite some time:
"I think most journalists would agree that I'm the most progressive, Senator Obama next, and Senator Clinton closest to the center. But I'd be willing to bet that if you ask most Americans the same question, they'd reverse it." That's not only, he says, because "she's a woman and he's an African American and Ah talk lahk thee-is. It's simple geography. Ask Middle Americans: You've got three Democratic candidates. One's from New York, one's from Chicago and one's from rural North Carolina. Who do you think is most like you?"
Then there's this description of Edwards' particular style:
He isn't ranting; he's twanging like a bluegrass banjo, rolling along in full control—outraged on behalf of people who have lost their jobs or pensions to corporate restructuring, people who watch their children go off to "this mess of a war in Iraq."
Edwards is of course absolutely, 100% right in his analysis. That controlled, twanged populism leads him not to seem merely outraged, but rather to seem outraged along with you. Which is great. The murky area is whether this is just a nice plus for his candidacy, or if the darker forces lurking beneath -- his beneficial regional identity is bound up in a history of racism -- detract from what otherwise looks like the best one-two progressive combination for the Democratic Party right now. I'm very sympathetic to the Edwards campaign, but I think even Edwards supporters should be careful not to lose track of these realities which -- not the fault of Edwards, but real nonetheless -- aren't particularly progressive at their core.
