1. Blogger's Criticism Fails to Hit Mark

1. Edwards is not repeating talking points - far from it. Aside from Chris Dodd - whose statement that the President is now "insulting our intelligence" by saying the surge has been working - he is the only Dem Pres Candidate to call for a clear, immediate troop withdrawl (and not to the numbers we sustained before the "surge"). He is also the only Dem with a comprehensive counter-terrorism plan on the table: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rwa1PxBpzs

Your criticism in this area may have been correct had you been talking about Obama's "gradual troop withdrawl" plans, or Hillary's "we're safer now than we were after 9/11" remarks, but with Edwards it fails to convince.

2. Regarding addressing how a "plurality of Dems" would support troop withdrawls, Edwards actually DOES address this by reminding Congress it must answer to the American people. Most Americans support immediate troop withdrawls, and most Congress-critters would like to remain in office. Put two and two together.

3. Regarding choice of cable network...The ad appeared on MSNBC, and Edwards explained his stance on Larry King Live after Bush's speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfEQltcQGw0

But, to answer your subtext: no, he isn't going on Fox any time soon, for reasons that should be clear to anyone who maintains even a passing interest in US politics.

Jen Q at 1:24PM on Sep 14th 2007

2. ["Democratic presidential nominee John Edwards purchased airtime on MSNBC to provide a response to President Bush as a way of boosting his position in the Democratic primary polls where he is stagnating in third place. Well, if he wants to go up in the polls, this advertisement/address will not do it. Mainly this is because Edwards' address repeats generalized talking points that do not distinguish him from others at all."]

He seemed to be distinguishing himself from the Congress by criticizing them, don't you think? That's a pretty big distinguishing act.

["Furthermore, he essentially says that de-funding the war should be the direction congress takes. This is a problematic suggestion to say the least."]

In the same way that suggesting we try to find a cure for cancer is problematic because we haven't done it yet?

["Edwards fails to address one thing: how could he expects a plurality of Democrats to go along with complete troop de-funding. Other than with a very small percentage of the Democrats in the House, complete de-funding has never been a plurality opinion in the Democratic House. The Dems have instead advocated a phased withdrawal - a slow withdrawal over a period of time. Additionally, many Blue Dogs are nervous about voting for a phased withdrawal feeling that it would kill their chances for re-election."]

What has that to do with Edwards putting forth HIS view of a proper solution? You seem to suggest that only ideas that meet with the approval of the current representation (using the word loosely) are valid. You're implying that a candidate who is running on the prevailing notion of "change" should avoid any ideas that might require it and only make proposals that the current impotent congress won't be rattled by. That's like proposing that we don't demand sober driving because the drunk drivers won't like it.

["The television response is a novel public relations approach, but it is also a wrongheaded strategy on a number of levels. First, why would Edwards book time on MSNBC when the ratings for the network have never been that good?"]

Because a) it's therefore cheaper, and b) it's where his targeted audience would be watching.

["MSNBC's top rated program "Countdown" is crushed nightly by the "O'Reilly Factor" in terms of viewers 3 to 1)."]

That's completely irrelevant. It's hardly likely that John Edwards is targeting Bill O'Reilly's audience for expanding his support. Your whole post sounds like you really just want to promote FOX without any regard for the tenets of political science.

["Additionally, the left leaning audience that MSNBC reaches is not where Edwards needs to gain traction. He has long since been courting the far left base. What he needs to do is court those who may be more centrist or traditionally liberal."]

And you figure they're watching Bill O'Reilly?

["He is in third place behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; if he wants to gain ground he needs to reach out to new voters, not to go on TV to tell an audience that generally agrees with him that they should all agree."]

If he's in third place behind Clinton and Obama, it's pretty obvious that where he needs to gain ground is from Clinton and Obama, dontcha think?

Grace Benavita at 1:48PM on Sep 14th 2007

3. Well said Jen Q!!!

Chris at 2:53PM on Sep 14th 2007

4. Edwards has been on the ground, where it counts meeting voters. And last night, his remarks and his action-purchasing the time-made the point that telling the truth about Iraq is the most important issue of our time. I'm not sure anyone needs strategy lecture to understand that you do not lead on Iraq by being among the last two people to cast your vote, as was the case last go-round with Clinton and Obama.

Amy Morton at 3:52PM on Sep 14th 2007

5. Lackluster? You might want to check the view numbers on YouTube; last time they counted he already received over 45,000 views in 20 hours. Looks like it worked to me.

davidgriffen at 5:46PM on Sep 14th 2007

6. Apparently the campaign tried to buy more time (5 minutes) and went to several networks but was turned down. So MSNBC simply was the network willing to air the spot at the time sought.

See: http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/09/edwards_buys_ad_time_on_msnbc.php

emma b. at 12:53AM on Sep 15th 2007