Edwards Down But Not Out

Two-Way Race...
Posted January 14, 2008 12:28 PM (EST)

For those of you who think the Democratic presidential nomination fight is just a two-way race between Obama and Clinton, check out this brand new poll from the Reno Gazette-Journal. Yup, that's right - it shows the Nevada caucus race a three-way, dead heat with John Edwards right in the mix.

Interestingly, this poll comes right on the heels of the Establishment viciously ratcheting up its angry attacks on the Edwards candidacy. Late last week, we saw a Reuters story headlined "Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards" detailing how Wall Street moneymen and K Street lobbyists are frightened about Edwards populist, power-challenging message against greed and corruption. We also saw self-anointed Democratic "expert" Lawrence O'Donnell pen a fulminating screed demanding Edwards get out of the race - not surprising coming from a man who made his name running the U.S. Senate Finance Committee - long the most corrupt, lobbyist-ravaged panel in all of Washington (somehow, running the U.S. Congress's version of a pay-to-play casino now makes people credible "experts" in campaign strategy and political morality).
According to the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, Edwards has long faced a media blackout - one that at least some honest media brokers like Keith Olbermann have noted. As I said a long time ago, that Edwards has even been able to compete in such a hostile environment is a testament to the power of his message.
The question we should ask is what the hostility and media blackout is really all about? I'd say the media's behavior is motivated by the same impulses that moves lobbyists to whine and cry to Reuters and self-important bloviators like O'Donnell to publicly burst a blood vessel on the Huffington Post - the people who have gotten used to the status quo are truly terrified by any candidates who they really believe will change things and threaten their power and status. Edwards is just such a candidate - one who threatens to muck up what the media and political elite want to be a race between two "nonthreatening," Wall Street-approved candidates. Obviously, it's a three-way race at this very moment - whether the Establishment likes that or not.
Let me conclude by saying I have no idea if the Gazette-Journal poll is accurate and/or whether Edwards will win Nevada (or any other state). Unlike most reporters, I don't spend my time covering the horse race, nor judging the candidates' viability only on the grounds of how much corporate cash they've been able to vacuum in. I spend my time trying to figure out which of these candidates represent the most fundamental form of change. One of the ways to judge that is to see who these candidates make uncomfortable. And by that measure, here's what I know: Edwards is generating hostility from precisely the kinds of people who are likely to be most averse to real, systemic change. And that speaks very well for the former senator from North Carolina.
_______________________________________


Ian Welsh

Accounts of Edwards Electoral Death Are Perhaps Premature
Posted January 14, 2008 02:43 PM (EST)
Nevada Caucus, Breaking Politics News
Perhaps all the folks who keep wanting to count Edwards out, should note this poll on Nevada (hat tip David Sirota):
E
Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent
It's still close, and Edwards' delegate count is just fine, thanks. He's in the running to be kingmaker at the convention, and if something unpredictable happens, he's still within distance to win it all. He'd be a fool to step out now. Nor does the fact that South Carolina is polling badly for him mean much--it's only one state.
Next, a word for Obama supporters who want Edwards to step out, from Krugman:
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama's supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
I would add that he also uses right wing frames far more often that the other two, his senior economic advisers are virtually reactionaries and talk of "hope" doesn't make you a progressive. (Remember Mr. "Morning in America" Reagan if you are inclined to disagree.)
It remains unclear to me that Edwards' supporters would go to Obama if Edwards dropped out, but the bottom line is simpler--there is no reason for Edwards to drop out. He's still in the running, and if he wants to choose which of the other candidates wins if he doesn't, walking into the convention with a block of delegates large enough to do it is the best way.
And Obama isn't Edwards--he is significantly to the right of Edwards and on the fight/compromise spectrum he is actually the most conciliatory of the three candidates. Edwards supporters want a fighter; that isn't Obama.
Edwards is alive and kicking, and a force to be reckoned with. There's no good reason for him to ever drop out of the nomination contest. Time for Obama supporters to tend to their own campaign, not to Edwards.