The Campaign Designer

The Edwards effect
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 1, 2008
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.
At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.
It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.
Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention
Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.
Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows.
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a "change" candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn’t all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.
Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.
One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.
Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.
If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.
_______________________________________

Why Obama lost Thursday's debate
by kos
Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:40:03 PM PST
On the substance of the debate, Obama might've squeezed out a narrow "victory". Hillary owned him on health care, but he owned her on Iraq, and Iraq was toward the tail end of the debate.
But on the politics, Hillary won.
Here's the bottom line: Hillary has the lead in most February 5th states. Despite the frothings of the anti-Hillary crowd, most Democrats like her and are comfortable with her. Therefore, Obama has to give them a reason NOT to vote for her, but for him instead.
Did he do that last night? Not that I saw. I noticed him agreeing with her a lot. And even when there were points of distinction, like drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, he let Clinton off the hook instead of pressing the advantage. The two candidates seemed to be going out of their way to find common ground. That's great if people already like you and plan on voting for you (Hillary), not so great if you're trying to make up ground (Barack).
In fact, as many people commented, the two looked like a ticket. And it's hard for Obama to win many crossover votes if people think Obama is part of the package if they vote for Clinton.
Obama won big in South Carolina after establishing clear distinctions between himself and Clinton in their South Carolina debate. Obama may be be gaining ground nationwide, but he lost an opportunity to bolster those efforts last night.
_______________________________________

What Still Bugs Me About Barack
Kathleen Reardon,
You had to hand it to both Democratic candidates last night. They were impressive.
But Barack Obama has a few habits that continue to make me uneasy -- skeptical.
First, he can be patronizingly dismissive. His "You're likable enough, Hillary" during the New Hampshire debate was one of the earliest signs. He appeared to "snub" Clinton at the State of the Union Address. And in last night's debate when he said, "Hillary would be on anyone's short list," there was a terse flippancy, again with none of the eye contact that usually accompanies a sincere compliment.
Bothersome too is his habit of holding chin high and looking down on her. It looks haughty -- maybe a Harvard thing. He appears often to be reaching to do this and holds the stance for several moments. It was particularly evident toward the end of the debate.He also rubs it in when he has some success. In communication we call it "lording," which is small time, petulant politics usually not becoming of people with deserved power.
Roger Simon described an instance of it in last night's debate:
Having tried to go head to head with her on whose health care plan is best, Obama was reduced to trotting out his big-gun endorsement. "You know, Ted Kennedy said that he is confident that we will get universal health care with me as president," Obama said. "And he's been working on it longer than, I think, anybody."
Which was Obama's way of saying: Nyah-nyah-nyah.
In this case lording was coupled with a put down. And this is the "likable" candidate.
Take it for what it's worth. Clinton toned down her tough as nails demeanor. Perhaps Obama should view some videotapes and tweak too because I'm surely not the only one who's noticed.
_____________________________________
Posted February 1, 2008 07:00 PM (EST)
Obama's Already Won
David Margolick,
It's nine months until the election, seven months until the Democratic national convention, and four days until Super Tuesday. But already, it's clear that Barack Obama has won, at least in one key respect. Only he can now say that at some point, some day, he will be the Democratic presidential nominee.
It may happen in 2008. I'd still put his chances at less than 50-50, but he's rapidly approaching that mark; Clinton retains a slight lead, and is essentially running out the clock. Even if it doesn't happen this year, Obama will be the vice presidential nominee -- that is, if he wants it. Others make more sense for Hillary to pick, and she'll clearly try to do so; for all of the smiles last night, she'd surely prefer someone more pliable, subservient, and appreciative. And someone who'd appeal to a constituency that's actually in play, like border state moderates (James Webb for them) or Hispanics (Bill Richardson) But so great would the pressure be to pick Obama that she'd effectively have no choice.
Offer in hand, Obama can then handicap her chances against John McCain. If he thinks she'll win, he'll take the post, and become both vice president and heir apparent. If he thinks she'll lose, he'll run for the seasoning and exposure, or pass it up and save himself the tsouris; he'll be the heir apparent anyway. One way or another, then, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee, whether in 2008, 2012, 2016, or 2020 (that is, assuming this country's tendency to knock off its most promising politicians doesn't repeat itself.) Since he's a young man (and has quit smoking) he can afford the wait.
Hillary Clinton might lead in delegates and in the national polls (for now) but she has no such guarantees. This year is her only shot, and she may not get even that. She's not even a good bet for number two; why would Obama assume all of her baggage? We don't yet know who won Super Tuesday. But in one real sense, Barack Obama has already won even more. A presidential nomination: it's not a bad thing to have in your pocket. Maybe that's why he's in such a good mood these days.