BLITZER: You know, it's interesting. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be making the same point in criticizing you. They suggested yesterday -- Hillary Clinton said it's not something you have to do by yelling and screaming. They are talking about your being supposedly one angry man. Barack Obama saying change doesn't come by hollering.
What do you say to their criticisms that you are just running over around the state screaming and hollering and making a lot of noise, but you're not ready to really get things done to work to get things done?
EDWARDS: Well, I would respectfully say that the reason both of them are attacking me is that they know from what they are seeing and their campaigns are seeing is that we are moving up every single day. All the polling shows it, I see it on the ground. And -- but the mistake that is being made in the criticism, of course, is I'm not the normal politician doing political talk. Instead, I'm speaking from my heart and soul and my gut about what I believe needs to be done in this country to stop corporate greed and to strengthen the middle class. And they are seeing the response, and they are trying to figure out some way to blunt it.
Is John Edwards this election cycle's Howard Dean? Because now, on the eve of first state primary, the meme being pushed by both the media and his Democratic nominee rivals is that John Edwards' rhetoric is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I'm no fan of Charles Krauthammer, but he said it best today:
"If young people show up to caucus, advantage Obama. If older people show up to caucus, advantage Clinton. If angry people show up to caucus, advantage Edwards!"
I hate to quote Charles, but I just couldn't put Edward's increasingly confrontational persona into words better than he did. I'm not sure if America is ready to elect a black candidate, or even a woman. But I'm absolutely convinced that America is not going to elect an angry candidate. And that is what John Edwards is becoming---"the angry candidate".
I don't know how much this persona is of media creation, because I haven't seen any stump speeches of Edwards where he seemed unduly angry, although it's certainly possible. This tidy little categorization--which may or may not be accurate--feels uncomfortably similar to Howard Dean's smearing as unhinged during the 2004 primaries.
Cruz at DailyKos asks the question "Why shouldn't Edwards be angry? Aren't you?"