John Edwards 2008: What’s not to like

Why did John Edwards act like such a patsy last night? He let Hillary accuse him of “throwing mud” without even offering a response. Even a mediocre trial lawyer would have punched back with something like “how Mrs. Clinton thinks that pointing out inconsistencies in her positions is throwing mud is beyond me. By her own definition, she just threw mud at Senator Obama over his healthcare proposal.” Instead, Edwards took the spanking from Hillary and went and sat in the corner.

RCP Blog 11/16/07
http://www.time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/

(CNN) — “Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio took a direct shot at fellow White House hopeful former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at Thursday’s CNN Democratic presidential debate.

“In the last debate, Hillary Clinton was criticized by John Edwards for some trade-related issue,” said Kucinich. “But the fact of the matter is, John, you voted for China trade understanding that workers were going to be hurt. Now, you’re a trial lawyer, you knew better.”

When given the chance to respond, Edwards said, “I’m not sure what being a trial lawyer has to do with it.”

Kucinich quickly shot back “product liability.”

CNN Political Ticker 11/15/07
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/15/kucinich-and-edwards-spar/

After the first Democratic debate, at the end of April, when Hillary Clinton made her main rivals seems small and insignificant, I expected that Barack Obama would fade from contention even before the Iowa Caucus. And in the months that followed, Obama seemed to be doing just that. But Clinton’s recent missteps, amplified by John Edwards’ strident attacks upon her, provided Obama with an opening–and in a stirring speech before the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines November 10, Obama took it. Based purely on opinion polls–and some scattered interviewing–I still see Clinton as the favorite for the nomination, but I can now envision a scenario in which Obama could surpass her.

snip

After the debate, Edwards, whose own campaign seems to be floundering, seized upon Clinton’s missteps to run the kind of incendiary ads one would expect to see from opponents in a general election. The ads, dubbed “The Politics of Parsing,” showed Clinton offering contradictory or equivocal responses on whether to withdraw from Iraq, how to fix social security, and what to do about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Edwards’ attacks may not help his own standing with voters, but they are likely to wound Clinton, just as Dick Gephardt’s attacks wounded front-runner Howard Dean before the 2004 Iowa Caucus.

The prime beneficiary of Edwards’ ads, and potentially of Edwards’ flagging support, is Obama, who has pulled statistically even with Clinton in the latest Iowa poll. In the past Clinton was able to argue that there was no significant political difference between herself and Obama, and that due to her superior experience, she was more likely to accomplish what they both advocated. But Clinton’s equivocation and transparent calculation raised questions about whether she was sufficiently committed to carry out their common objectives. Clinton could also benefit from the perception that a white woman of considerable experience was more electable than a black man who had only served in the Senate for three years and had little to show for it. But Clinton’s equivocation–and the controversy over the White House papers–was a reminder of her political vulnerabilities, which would be fully exploited in a general election campaign. (One need only recall the 2004 election when John Kerry’s positioning and flip-flopping, widely known to reporters, barely surfaced during the primaries, but were successfully made into a major issue during the general election.)

Obama’s speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner advanced the argument for his own candidacy. None of the other Democratic or Republican candidates can match his sheer rhetorical brilliance: his ability to be at once cool and passionate, cerebral and emotional. Earlier in the campaign, his eloquence appeared superfluous. It was negated by Clinton’s polish and experience. But as Clinton’s vulnerabilities have reemerged, Obama’s oratorical powers have suddenly become relevant again. They are seen as his means of transcending his inexperience and race (which will be a disadvantage in a general election campaign). They are a promise that, unlike Clinton, he will actually do what he says he is going to do without getting caught in the maelstrom of Washington party politics.

The New Republic 11/15/07
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=c8aebe97-6289-4ec2-b6c8-ad14e59ccc0a

By the way, the position of the top three Democratic candidates on putting spent nuclear fuel inside Yucca Mountain are as follows:

Obama: No.

Clinton: Absolutely, positively, I-will-chain-myself-to-the-foothills no.

Edwards: The fact that I once voted yes should not be interpreted as anything but a no. And do not call this waffling. There is only one waffler in this pack, and I don’t even like the way she dresses.

Something weird is going on with John Edwards, who was cheerfulness incarnate when four years ago he was the moderate-Southerner-who-can-speak-to-the-Reagan-Democrats. Then he morphed into a sorrowful populist who thought we should vote for him because he cared the most about the poor. Now he’s running around like a rabid gerbil, telling people he should be president because he’s the angriest. Soon, he’s going to run out of adjectives to embody.

New York Times 11/15/07
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/opinion/15collins.html

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, launched a web ad so aggressive towards Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, upon first viewing I thought it was put together by the Republican National Committee. (WATCH IT HERE).

And today Edwards will continue making his case against the former First Lady in such a fashion, saying in Iowa City, per remarks released by his campaign, that “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire. We have seen this movie before. And it doesn’t end well — in fact, as we all know too well, in Iraq, it hasn’t ended at all.”

I agree that Clinton’s debate performance exposed her to several charges of not presenting a clear opinion — what Edwards calls “double-speaking.”

But has Edwards exposed himself to that charge as well?

ABC Political Punch 11/5/07
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/11/the-high-standa.html

October:

Clinton-51%, Obama 21%, Edwards 15%

Now:

Clinton-44%, Obama 25%, Edwards 14%

CNN 11/5/07
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/05/poll.presidential.08/

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton survived criticism from her party rivals in a debate Oct. 30 with her lead for the nomination unchanged, according to Newsweek’s most recent poll.

The poll, released today, shows New York Senator Clinton favored by 44 percent of those polled, compared with 24 percent for Illinois Senator Barack Obama and 12 percent for former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the magazine’s poll showed in results released a year before the 2008 election.

While Clinton is favored over Obama and Edwards, her two top competitors, by Democratic female voters and has a “marginal lead” among male Democratic voters, Obama is stronger among younger Democrats, Newsweek said. Obama and Edwards are also stronger than Clinton among independent voters, the magazine said.

Bloomberg 11/3/07
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adenWTFsj2uA&refer=us

Taylor Marsh

snip: Edwards goes hard negative, playing an opposition party role instead of a fellow Democrat, but it’s his right to do it. The set up and styling are great. The juxtaposition is perfectly placed, the music is good, but if you take the substance out of the video and line it up, is it “devastating” as Markos breathlessly claims? The Edwards’ ad is calculated to play on appearance, relying on voters and others not taking the text apart from the positioning of Clinton. When you do, however, the text just doesn’t add up. Of course, I’ll get hammered for daring to dissect it. But they certainly gave it a good try, because the visuals are powerful, even if the sound bites fall short. Oh, and make sure you notice the first voice in the ad: Tim Russert.

snip: It is interesting that the Edwards campaign felt compelled to answer my charges about Russert, which have been proven beyond a doubt. So let’s take this ad apart, because there’s some things about it that don’t quite come off.

Clinton in first clip on Iraq: “I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home.”

Clinton in second clip on Iraq: “We’re going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy, we may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

When you compare Edwards’ own statement to Clinton’s, things get even more complicated. Edwards on Iraq at the Dartmouth debate, when he also said he couldn’t commit to 2013, as well as beyond:

Edwards in MSNBC paid time: “It is time to end this war.”

Edwards on “Meet the Press”: “Unless we’re going to close the embassy in Baghdad, and have the only American embassy in the world that we provide no protection for, there have to some troops in Baghdad for protecting the embassy. … We do need to maintain quick reaction forces just outside Iraq. … .. That quick reaction force would be focused on the possibility of Al Qaeda operations.”

Edwards at Dartmouth debate: “I think the problem is — and it’s what you just heard discussed — is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.” - John Edwards

Sound familiar?

Is that Edwards’ “double-talk” or the “politics of parsing,” or did I miss something?

Now back to the Edwards’ ad attacking Clinton:

Clinton in first clip on Social Security: “But on specific issues I’ve come up with very specific plans; with respect to Social Security I do have a plan.”

Clinton in second clip on Social Security: “But personally, I’m not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.”

Translation: Clinton has a plan on Social Security, but she’s not going to even begin fixing it at first, because fiscal responsibility is her first priority. Where’s the “double-speak”? Seriously, I’d like to know. But you certainly can disagree with her statements, which is a whole different matter, especially on substance.

The worst segment and most harmful on the Edwards’ YouTube is the last on immigration. Clinton was caught off guard, though she managed to stand up for Spitzer, which has Republicans going wild. This is general election fodder for the wingnuts on an issue that has the potential to harm all Democrats. This is the gay issue of the ‘08 election. And guess what, Edwards didn’t say hardly anything on it, with Obama agreeing with Clinton. But in the end our nominee is going to have to figure out how to make this a national security issue of great importance, like Richard Clarke states often as do others, or we’ll be playing defense all next year on it. Democrats are underestimating the importance of this issue and how the optics and the pile on from media types like Lou Dobbs will hurt. That doesn’t mean we pander, but it means we have to get our act together on the issue. Note to team Edwards: Bubba will be on Lou Dobbs’ side. So the Edwards’ video scores one on the immigration debate, but it wasn’t just a shot at Clinton. It actually hit us all. However, it’s a Hillary haters feast.

Of all the ads, the Edwards ad is getting most of the play. It’s exactly what you’d expect from a Republican. But this type of ad isn’t going to elevate Edwards. Oh, and Edwards’ man from 2004 out of New Hampshire just endorsed Clinton (h/t reader rakk12). But as Chase Martyn said, it could end up helping Obama.

It’s been a tough week for the frontrunner, with Obama and Edwards sliding through easily because Russert couldn’t be interested to do his homework on them. It’s made my job harder, because very few are doing it. But in the end, Clinton is dusting herself off and moving on, as she’s done for fifteen years, every time the attacks start up. No doubt there’s more to come.

Taylor Marsh.com

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

The longer the seemingly endless presidential primary season drags on, the more it’s beginning to look like there’s not much, substantively or ideologically, to distinguish the top tier of Democratic contenders.

Indeed, front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton more or less admitted in her numerous television appearances over the weekend that she and her fellow Democrats were united on the subject of universal health care, and that her much-vaunted plan wasn’t even all that different from those proposed by John Edwards and Barack Obama.

And when it comes to the issue most voters claim is the most important to them — the war in Iraq — last night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire further blurred the lines of distinction among the top three. Debate moderator Tim Russert of NBC News pulled no punches, kicking off the event with a specific and pointed question for all the candidates: Will you pledge to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of your first term in January 2013?

The answer from Clinton, Edwards and Obama was a resounding “no,” which suggests that all three of them now have at least one eye on the general election, not on winning over anti-war activists and the left-wing netroots.

snip: The most surprising answer to the question came from Edwards, who has adopted very tough rhetoric on the war, accusing both President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress for failing to end it. Despite those claims, Edwards echoed his fellow top-tier candidates and told Russert he “cannot make that commitment” to remove all troops within the first term. However, he did attempt to distinguish himself from Clinton and Obama by saying he would remove all combat troops and end all combat operations “over a period of several months” upon taking office.

snip: Richardson, a former diplomat and the current governor of New Mexico, also drove home that point in a new TV ad that debuted on New Hampshire airwaves this week. The 30-second spot featuring three prominent liberal bloggers showcases Richardson’s latest attempt to court the anti-war netroots.

But perhaps Richardson should have saved himself the trouble (and advertising dollars), because it appears the netroots aren’t as obsessed with getting every single soldier out of Iraq as one might think. According to the Hotline’s Blogometer (subscription), Clinton won the debate among liberal bloggers, who were impressed by her ability to “command the forum.” Perhaps the Democratic candidates aren’t the only ones with their eyes on the ultimate prize — a White House victory for the Democrats in 2008.

National Journal/The Gate

http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/09/democrats.php

* Edwards was very sharp, needling Clinton frequently, without being overly aggressive. I think he probably helped himself the most last night, except he stumbled slightly when Russert reminded him that in 2004 he said the nation couldn’t afford universal health care, described it as “not achievable,” and “not responsible.” Edwards said he’s changed, “and so has America.” It was a subtle reminder that 2008 Edwards is frequently at odds with 2004 Edwards.

The Carpetbagger Report 9/27/07
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13021.html